Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

[Hockeycowboy]

"Yet, there are many that I used to talk to you about, whom I now mention with tears. For because they’ve become enemies of the Anointed One’s impaling pole, 19 they'll end up by being destroyed, because their bellies have become their gods and the things they are proud of are the things that shame them, since all they think about is earthly things!"

Philippians 3, 2001Translation.

@Deeje , we have to leave these ones, alone. Hopefully they'll come back to Jehovah, but it's up to them. If not, Jehovah will 'rebuke them'.

We know one thing: they have "pained the Holy One of Israel (Psalms 78:41)", but they won't find Jehovah anywhere else.

Take care.

I'm going to be off RF for a while. Just a couple weeks, I think.

I wish everyone on these forums, life and peace forever.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Continued.....
Its not wanting a better education that is the problem...its the kind of education they seek and for what purpose.
Motivation can come from a bad place.....human selfishness and a desire for what money can buy is deceptive.
As Paul wrote to Timothy...

I agree with you on this. The scripture applying to the poor as well is a VERY good insight. We see it all the time. I was referring to this point: "Jehovah's Witnesses receive the best education anyone could ever want or need". Clearly many don't want that education. And there are aspects to what you are taught that many don't need either.

"Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it."

Agree with you on this. Good point. It applies to many JW's that I have encountered (I am very aware that the organisation promotes unity and love (the way they see it). Infighting isn't encouraged).The organisation also often mentions how difficult it is for members to cope in the world and that many people suffer from depression and other difficulties. They aren't the complainers. I am sure you agree that your understanding is that Satan tries to tempt "Gods's people". That also plays a role. So your quote "how to live life in this world ruled by satan" should rather be "how to survive in this world ruled by Satan" as well as "how to live the morally right path".

You do understand what that political party card symbolized though, don't you? It meant compromise.....it meant joining forces with an extremely corrupt government that was forcing our brothers to sacrifice their Christian neutrality.
What they suffered was acceptable to God because it furnished proof that the devil could not overreach them through fear. (1 Peter 2:20) It was a Job-like trial...and one that they endured with faith. Jehovah will reward such ones like he did Job. (Job 42:10-17)

Think back to the Christians in the Roman arenas. Whole families were subjected to the most heinous of deaths just because they were Christians. Yet all they had to do to walk free was to place a pinch of incense on the alter as an act of worship to the Emperor. They refused, knowing that they and their children would be torn to pieces by wild animals. Death does not separate us from God. (Romans 8:38-39)

Check this:

Malawi Congress Party - Wikipedia

When Malawi became a republic in 1966, the MCP was formally declared to be the only legal party. For the next 27 years, the government and the MCP were effectively one. All adult citizens were required to be party members. They had to carry "party cards" in their wallets at all times.

To be part of the country, one had to have a party card. It would have been the equivalent of an ID card. But that is the way I see it. Other might see it differently. I am just using this as an example of not necessary how to live (many died). If you are referring to how to live to please God, then your wording is clarified.

That is rubbish. The pedophile problem is small in our organization compared to so many others, but we have dealt with it as responsibly as we can these days.
We can no more keep those predators out of our ranks than can any other organization where there are children. We are naturally trusting because that is what we are taught to be amongst our brethren. Pedophiles know this and are very good con artists but we have taken all the necessary steps to eliminate them from our ranks as much as we are able. This crime is reported to the police.

The fact that you guys are trusting I accept. The necessary steps you take though are inadequate because JW's use the two Witness rule to judge pedophile cases internally, which is an incompetent method as it is very rare that anyone other than the victim or the perpetrator. Also it has been proven in court that JW's and their elders do not report child abuse cases. This is evident in the Australia Royal Commission in which 1006 suspected or known pedophiles were not reported to police between 1950 and 2015.

Rereading my post "loaded" seems to be a bit harsh but I never mentioned to what extent your problem with pedophiles is compared to others.

Australian government website about inadequacy of policies and not reporting these sex crimes:
Report into Jehovah’s Witness organisations released | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

A brief summary of the problem:
Jehovah's Witness church dealing with sex abuse scandal of its own | Webb

Jehovah’s Witness abuse files remain secret after court settlements

Montana jury awards $35M in sex abuse lawsuit against Jehovah's Witnesses

It seems as if the flaws in humans must be eliminated altogether in order for a brotherhood to be acceptable to some, but in this world, it isn't remotely possible. A glance back at Israel might reveal that humans are humans with human failings. It didn't stop them from being God's people. He still used them to accomplish his purpose. When any member of that nation sinned against Jehovah's laws, they were punished. (Hebrews 12:5-6)

The problem isn't that there are pedophiles among Witnesses. I know that most abhor the practice. The problem is the organisations handling of the cases. And clearly there is a problem. Many investigations are underway in Europe since the ARC investigation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

"Shunning" seems to get people's hackles up, but it is entirely scriptural. It is a form of discipline that is meant to bring a person to their senses and appreciate what they had, but threw away. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Matthew 18:15-17; 2 John 10; Hebrews 13:17) No one is shunned who hasn't committed a grave error unrepentantly. They want to blame everyone else but its their own fault.
If you commit the crime in full knowledge of the penalty, why bother complaining about it?
It works much like the account of the Prodigal Son. Only the humble return and are welcomed "home".

I am not against the idea that those who do not stick to the rules of the group should be disciplined. The only exception is disagreeing with the group which is too complicate to speak about here because it depends on whether a person should be baptised before a certain age or not. My problem is the shunning, which is actually a staple of dangerous cults. So you guys have a similarity to them with that. It is morally messed up as well. Check the consequences of ostracism. As you would see in the last link, Scientology and the FLDS shun members. It is definitely not a "loving" practice:

Ostracism hurts—but how? Shedding light on a silent, invisible abuse
https://truthout.org/articles/the-s...ing-ostracized-hurts-even-more-than-bullying/
Shunning and the BITE Model of Mind Control in the Jehovah's Witnesses - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

Good for you. That is not the experience of all however. Giving personal testimony is pointless because for every story in the positive, there are many that are negative. Its all about putting yourself in harm's way....and most especially dangerous when one is a boarder at those universities, far away from home and the influence of responsible parenting. Paul leads his warning with "do not be misled" when he spoke about associating with those who may be a negative influence. (1 Corinthians 15:33)

Definitely agree here. I stated my experience to add that and to avoid a blanket statement conclusion. In fact my experience is reflective of many JW's experience as well. So with your negative, there is also a positive.

oh good grief....since when do the people of those faiths come to your door with the good news of the Kingdom? The only ones are Mormons who don't even come with a Bible. Its a whole other Jesus with a whole other message. They haven't been to my home in years. They used to....we had some nice talks.

Recruitment? Is that what Jesus did? Seriously.....

Have any of those you mentioned called at your door lately? Do any of them call on their neighbors in any routine way to give them a hope for the future? Jesus said that this work would be done right to the end, because he was backing it.....I see no one else doing what we do consistently, for as long as we have. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) It was a command after all.

I'm afraid that your arguments are one sided and shallow. I imagine the first Christians had to put up with the same kind of thing. Jesus told us to expect it. (John 15:18-21)

I was just referring to preaching. I most likely have misunderstood what you originally meant. If you are talking about everything involved, then all those religions are unique.

Recruitment meaning:



noun
noun: recruitment

1. 
   1.
   
   the action of enlisting new people in the armed forces.
   "methods of military recruitment"
   • 
     the action of finding new people to join an organization or support a cause.
     "this was a deterrent to the recruitment of nurses"

Recruitment is what the Moonies called there form of getting new members. It was using methods of preaching. I wasn't using it as a derogatory statement.

Methods of Evangelism:
Approaches to evangelism - Wikipedia

You guys used to do open air preaching I think, I must check. It was one of the methods Jesus used. And preaching in temples.

I haven't received JW's at my door and many people I know have never met JW's. I think it might have to do with the reason that the JW's here preach at times when people are least likely to be home.

Christian groups that I have come across have a different interpretation of what is meant by "house to house" from Witnesses, therefore they do not see it as important. They also see it as an inefficient way of preaching, as they use methods that they believe are more efficient, especially in the modern age with modern technology. Realistically, even though JW's go door to door, it is not the best way, which is why you guys also employ other methods. Jesus didn't specifically say that his followers would preach from door to door until the end. There are other groups who have achieved the same as you with regards to preaching throughout the world depending on what is meant by it, as social media makes that easy. Certainly Islam is making its mark as it is the fastest growing religion and Christianity (not your version) has spread throughout the world. The Islamic countries are some of the most difficult countries to penetrate yet many Evangelicals have made some sort of impact there through online evangelism which is why there are quite a few concerts getting beheaded in those countries.

Link to alternative view:
Should Christians Preach the Gospel Door to Door (Acts 20:20)?

If my arguments and shallow, why have you created many strawman arguments? Also I fail to see how I am being one sided when I actually agreed with you at least four times in my post before these two. I agreed with you a few times in these two posts as well. I am not biased just because I disagree with you in many cases. You might be biased because you won't even acknowledge that I agree with you in some instances.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That is an excellent point, Deeje!

And as you said, He disciplined them.

We can't expect perfection from imperfect people!

I'm just glad that we "get rid of bad attitudes", when necessary.
Because that's what it amounts to. We never disfellowship people for their actions; rather, it's all about their attitude concerning what they've done, if they want to continue to practice it.

Gotta love Jehovah's instructions. 1 Corinthians 5

As I said to Deeje, I do not have a problem with disciplinary procedures. I do have a problem with shunning. It has severe psychological affects on the one being shunned and is evidently not loving. I have provided links in my reply to Deeje.

 

[TiggerII]

Calm wrote:

Other scriptures without the definite article

The following passages, as with John 1:1, also identified the word "God" in the Greek scriptures without the use of the definite article as in John 1:1. Yet, if you will see the NWT, the Watchtower does not translate these passages as "a god" as they did in John 1:1! The following are quoted directly from the 1984 New World Translation.

John 1:6 There arose a man sent forth as a representative of God, his name was John. (no definite article)

John 1:13 and they were born, not from blood, or from a fleshly will, or from man's will, but from God. (no definite article)

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him. (no definite article)

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifies me; he who YOU say is YOUR God. (no definite article Noun/Nominative case as in John 1:1)

Each of the above scriptures, clearly speaking of God the Father, could NOT be translated by the Watchtower as "a god" without creating suspicion by their followers. Yet, each of these passages are written in the Greek, without the definite article, as in John 1:1!

.......................................
So you are still doing it, Calm.
As previously pointed out to you, We are dealing only with the nominative case of 'God': theos. That is the case used in John 1:1c and it is the case which (with a few exceptions because of modifiers) John always uses the article with when he intends 'God.'

I think you even used the same examples the last time you copied this false information.

John 1:6, as you were told before, uses the genitive case (theou, 'of god'). This case very often leaves off the article throughout the NT and is not an honest example as a parallel to theos in John 1:1c.

John 1:13 again uses the genitive theou.

John 1:18 uses the accusative case theon.

John 8:54 uses theos, all right, but it is modified by a genitive ('of you'). This is not only unlike John 1:1c with its unmodified theos, but trinitarian grammarians themselves admit that genitive-modified nouns frequently do not use the article which must be added by the translator if context indicates it.

A quick study of your own with an interlinear would also show the truth of this.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are objective facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, what I consider evidence that He was who He claimed to be, a Manifestation of God, but there is no way to objectively prove that. When people look at those facts they either consider them significant or not. But if they have a bias already in place it will be near impossible for them to read and understand.

I agree with you here. A bias either way would be a problem.

I do not really understand how anyone can look at all the prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah and deny that He was the return of Christ and the Messiah. I am not talking about a few verses, because that would not be ample. I am talking about a plethora of verses, all throughout the Old Testament, prophecies that were not fulfilled by Jesus and realistically never could be in the future. If people really want to know the truth they would at least read Thief in the Night by William Sears.

I don't understand why if he was the return of Christ and the Messiah he wouldn't understand the significance of the sacrifices. Does he mention them? And thank you VERY much for adding another book to my library Will read it.

One reason my faith is stronger because many people challenge my beliefs which leads me to do more research, only to find out I was right after all; and the more I discover the more I know it cannot be wrong. From a purely logical standpoint, I cannot see how it could be a false belief since there has been nothing that could ever refute it. The only thing that could ever refute it is if someone was able to uncover something about Baha’u’llah I did not know that would have to mean He was a false prophet, but nobody has ever been able to present anything like that. All the history of the Baha’i Faith shows what kind of a person He was, so the only way that could be wrong is if the history was fabricated.

Thats cool. I would think that one always has to think of a refutation method for their belief. For Christians it is that if Christ did not die on the cross and was resurrected, then their faith is in vain.

Then if you are logical, you would have to ask yourself why anyone would go to the lengths to fabricate the entire history of a religion? Moreover, why would Baha’u’llah have sacrificed 40 years of His life if He was a false prophet? What would be His motive? He came from a wealthy family so He could have has an easy life as a minister in the government, but instead He gave up all His wealth and possessions to follow the Bab and as a result he was exiled and banished from place to place for 40 years, this fulfilling this prophecy to a tee:

That is a very good point. I often have that conundrum with many religions. Who would fabricate their histories? There are many reasons why someone would do what Baha'u'llah did as I have discovered from my studies of religions and cults, but whether they are true or coincidence is a whole nother story.

Micah 7:12 “In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.”

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

Have you read the whole of Micah 12? It starts off talking about Israel's corruption and punishment and it waiting for YHWH's mercy (verse 1-7). It is ready to be punished for its sins (the nation as a whole) until YHWH pleads Israel's case and YHWH executes justice on Israel's behalf to its enemies. (verse 8-9). The enemies then get ashamed asking "Where is YHWH your God?"and gets trampled in the streets. (verse 10). Israel will then be rebuilt, people far and wide will be called to Israel, from Assyria, the fortified cities, the fortress to the river, from sea to sea, and mountain to mountain. But when they reach Israel the land will be desolate because of the bad people who dwell in it. (verse 11-13). The verses you quote are about people from those areas going to Israel after it is rebuilt. I don't see how it relates to your prophet unless it is taken out of context. I can definitely see it being linked to the diaspora returning to Israel after it was rebuilt.

First of all, I do not believe in the creation story as it is presented in Genesis is literal truth. I believe that it is metaphorical. I believe humans, animals and plants evolved over time, they were not created in six days by God 6000 years ago. Such a belief is refuted by scientific evidence but it is also insane, so I would not believe it anyway. I think such a belief is no different from science fiction, it is not congruent with reality. It is also the reason why more and more people are dropping out of Christianity and becoming atheists.

God did create everything in existence by setting the process of evolution in motion, not by waving a magic wand and making all these things appear in six days. Maybe all that science fiction has gone to your head.

If you are basing your view on scientific evidence then I understand your viewpoint. That makes it logical. It means you are using reality and evidence to eliminate contradictory claims. And no, sir, that would NOT be science fiction (that is evolution). It would be fantasy, a different genre involving magic. (I think science fiction has gone to my head. Although science fiction is more prophetic than any religion i know. We are making robots and hover boards now even.)I have heard that many early Christians did not believe the Genesis story was literal. It appear that that is a recent belief resulting from the rise of fundamentalists.

There is nothing logical about raising dead bodies from their graves. That has to be the most ridiculous Christian belief although there are others. There is nothing logical about Jesus floating down from the clouds and waving a magic wand and recreating the earth as it once was 6000 years ago like a Garden of Eden. Why would God do such a ridiculous thing? Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God is an idiot. God is also All-Loving, All-Knowing, and All-Wise, so God is not going to do something that is not in the best interest of humanity, and I mean all of humanity, not just a numbered few Christians.

The question is not whether he will raise the dead or not. The question is "Is he able to do it if he wished?" (The way you are explaining these things is funny though. "Just because God is omnipotent does not mean God is an idiot" literally made tears come out of my eyes ) I am beginning to understand your thought process though.

Yes, God created the earth for a purpose, so people could live on it and prepare for their life in the spiritual world. The earth is recreated every time a new Manifestation of God appears but this time is different because it is a complete overhaul of everything that has been in place during the Prophetic Cycle of religion, since Adam.

In what way is it recreated? Also how does that coincide with Science?

The Kingdom of God will be built during this new age, the Messianic Age, but it will be built by humans, not by Jesus or God. It is being built for those who are living now and future generations, not for dead people to rise from graves and live here again. Once the body dies, the soul ascends to the spiritual realm and takes on a new form. There is no way we can understand what that will be like until we experience it.

OK. I get that.

Of course God can perform miracles and the Manifestations of God could also perform miracles, but that does not mean that God has to perform the miracles that Christians concocted by misinterpreting what the scriptures mean.

Well that is circumstantial then.

Here is my belief on science and religion is that if religion is antagonistic to science it is mere superstition. Of course concepts like God, the soul and the spiritual world are not within the purview of science, but they are not disproven or contradicted by science either.

That makes perfect sense. I understand your viewpoint now. Progress! Thanks for the patience.

 

[SugarOcean]

First fake
In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
... and the Word was a God.

The Jehovah's Witnesses want to hide the divinity of Jesus by adding a "one" to this passage. Because "a God" means "Mighty One". The original scriptures prove that there is no "a", a clear forgery.

Second fake
In the old scriptures of the Bible it says in Hebrews 1:8
But with respect to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; and: A scepter of rectitude is the scepter of thy kingdom.
Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | CARM.org

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
But with respect to the Son: God is your throne, ...

Again they try to hide the divinity of Jesus. The old scriptures prove that God the Father personally addresses Jesus with the title God. God, the Father, addressed nobody another with the title God, Jesus is the only one. This biblical passage also proves the Trinity.

Third fake
In the oldest original copies of the Bible it says in Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

but in the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses it says
... and God's power...

Here they try to present the Holy Spirit as just a "power", but the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Fourth fake
They claim that Jesus is an angel, but Jesus is not once identified as that. The Bible even makes a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels.
Hebrews 1: 5-8
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all Gods’s angels worship him.”
Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Fifth fake
They claim that the Holy Spirit is not a person but only a power. But the Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person.
The Holy Spirit ...
• teaches the disciples (Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 2:13)
• leads the sons(Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18)
• witnesses the forgiveness of sins to Christians (Hebrews 10:15)
• convict the world of sin, justice and judgment (John 16:8-11)
• leads believers into the whole truth (John 16:13)

The Scriptures not only show that the Spirit of God is acting, but are also presented as someone with whom something happens.
The Holy Spirit can ...
• to be blasphemed (Mark 3:29-30)
• be lied to (Acts 5:3)
• be tried, that is, put to the test (Acts 5:9)
• to be fought (Acts 7:51)
• be saddened (Ephesians 4:30)

Sixth fake
They claim that Jesus is not God, but the Bible teaches the opposite.

• Jesus is omnipotent (Revelation 1:8)
• Jesus is the true God (John 20:28-29) (Romans 9:5) (1 John 5:20)(Isaiah 9:6)(Hebrews 1:8)
• Jesus is the creator (Romans 11:36) (Colossians 1:16-17)
• God became flesh and Jesus is this flesh (John 1:1+14) (1 Timothy 3:16)
• Jesus is worshipped (Acts 7:59-60)

........

Seventh fake
They teach that the name "Jehovah" is God's(father) name, but that's not true. This name is wrong.
The name jehovah is a fictitious name of the catholic church, in the 14th or 15th century catholic theologians mixed the title AdOnAi with YHWH and from this came "Jehovah".
The name Jehovah is wrong not only because it was created by a "mix", but also because the letters J and V are not present in Ancient Hebrew. The J is usually a Y and the V/W is a U (in ancient hebrew there are no J or V/W sound). Also, "YHWH" is wrong, because the letter W did not exist until much later. The W was a "double U" before it was changed. YHUH is the right form and not "YHWH".
The name Jehovah is not only wrong but also blasphemy, because Je-hovah means earth-disaster. The Je comes from the Greek and means also in Greek earth, Hovah means in Hebrew disaster. Strong's Hebrew: 1943. הֹוָה (hovah) -- a ruin, disaster
Yud(Y)-Hei(AH)-UaU(U)-Hei(AH) are the 4 letters of the name.
If you connect all the letters now, then the name YAHUAH comes out. That's the true name of the father. In the ancient Hebrew, YHUH does not mean "I am who I am," , but BEHOLD A HAND, BEHOLD A NAIL.

JW is a cult.
It was started in the late 1800's by an ex-congregationalist named Charles Taze Russell. Only in his day it was started out as, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Their bible is of their own creation that is published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, The New World Translation.
Why Have We Produced the New World Translation?

Part of why JW's are not Christian is that they teach that *Jesus was created by God as the archangel Michael, during his earthly sojourn was merely human, and after his crucifixion was re-created an immaterial spirit creature.
None of that is actually supported by bible scripture not manipulated by the WTB&TS.
*source
The particulars of : *New World Translation Bible

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have the same problem not being emotional about God which is probably one reason why I listen to so much Christian radio. On the other hand, it is not a Baha’i belief that we can have a personal relationship with God, because God is far too exalted to ever approach on a personal level. The only way we can relate to God is through the Manifestations of God. That is what Christians do, relate to God through Jesus, but they have the illusion that Jesus is God so they believe they have a personal relationship with God.

Not necessarily on that last point. JW's believe they have a personal relationship with God even though they do not believe Jesus is God. I think Trinitarians have a more intense relationship with God because they believe he died for them, experiencing what he didnt have to for their salvation.

You are right that we have to have emotions towards God to have a proper relationship to God, but we do that through the Manifestation of God and what He has revealed, through prayer and meditation.

“Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their affection upon them. Out of the whole world He hath chosen for Himself the hearts of men—hearts which the hosts of revelation and of utterance can subdue. Thus hath it been ordained by the Fingers of Bahá, upon the Tablet of God’s irrevocable decree, by the behest of Him Who is the Supreme Ordainer, the All-Knowing.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 279

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-128.html.utf8?query=hearts&action=highlight#gr11 I get that.

I do have a definite bias when it comes to the Bible, particularly the OT. Maybe other Baha’is take it more literally than I do. I cannot say that there was not a reason for the sacrifices back in those days, but I do not know that God ordered them. Rather the people offered them up. I cannot say I know why and it does not matter anymore as far as I am concerned.

The sacrifices were a part of the law that God gave Israel according to the bible. Just read the whole of Leviticus. He gave the instructions directly to Moses.

The Abrahamic religions are the religions that are closest to the truth about God, since they teach one God, but that does not mean other religions do not also contain spiritual truth. Are you going to completely discount everything in Buddhism and Hinduism just because they are not under the Abrahamic umbrella? This is a big topic, but in brief the Baha’i belief is that religions were revealed over time and according to the capacity of the people of those ages to understand truth about God. Also, religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism are so changed by man from their original form that what we have cannot really say that they are represent the Word of God. For example, it is a Baha’i belief that the Buddha taught one God. Now most Buddhists do not even believe in God, it has gone that far off track.

According to the Bible, Israel wasn't supposed to be contaminated by other religions. Other religions were seen as false. Same with Christianity. While they do not claim that there is no truth in other religions, they do say that they are out rightly wrong, against God and worship false Gods, thus making them false.

Why can’t Jesus with his apostles and Muhammed both be right? The fact that what they revealed is different does not make it contradictory. Why can’t an omnipotent God reveal something different whenever He wants to? After all, humanity changes over time so its need are different in every age. This idea that the whole truth and everything humanity will ever need was revealed in the Bible is ludicrous, if you think about it. Are God’s Hands tied? Moreover, the Jews believe that the Torah is all we will ever need and the Christians believe the Old and New Testament are all we will ever need, so both cannot be right. Do you understand the problem?

They can't both be right because Jesus has to have died on the cross and resurrected for Christianity to be true and Islam denies that ever took place. Also, there is the book of revelations, the relevence of sacrifices, the contradictions between the Quran and Bible, the nature of their laws etc which contradict each other. It is a super complicated topic. The bible lays out its whole plan. The New Testament clearly references the Old Testament which adds to its validity and Jews and Christians can speak coherently with each other about OT texts, Christianity was started by Jews and one needs OT texts to understand the NT. The Quran exists independently of those two books and shows no knowledge of the previous books like the NT references the OT. The Bible constantly hyperlinks itself which can only happen if the NT writers knew the OT.

Yes, the JWs have a valid claim because I do not know the Bible very well, but they cannot make that claim against other Baha’is who do know the Bible well.

Some younger Baha’is were raised as Baha’is, but most Baha’is of my age in the Western world were raised as Christians.

I would be interested in meeting a Bahai'i who knows the bible well.

And that is the salient problem, interpretation. There are so many different ways that verses can be interpreted so how can any one of the Christian sects claim they have the only correct interpretation? What gives them that authority? This is the reason Christianity is so divided. Even though they tried to make it uniform at Nicaea it did not resolve all the differences in interpretation of individual verses throughout the Bible.[/QUOTE] Another deep topic. The Bible has a few clear doctrines and many other open for interpretation. Many denominations recognize that and many saved unless they only stick to a few essentials. Eschatology for instance has varying interpretations but they discuss those beliefs heatedly while considering them not relevent for salvation at the same time. Fundamentalist groups though are a whole other story. With them it is "my way or the high way" and they develop sometimes dangerous cult dynamics.

And where did those leaders get their authority? As an outsider looking in I think I can be unbiased because after all the Baha’i Faith does not rest upon the Bible. So what I see are all these Christians with different understandings which really only amount to personal opinions since they cannot be proven to be correct.

Where they get their authority is based on interpretation and there is no proof. Actually there is proof to the contrary.

This sounds more like a cult than a religion. Moreover, if they keep changing their interpretations that shows that they were wrong in the past, so how can they trust the present interpretations?

See? Even you come to that conclusion. So I am not crazy. I had a whole thread about that. They do not see the logic and keep calling their group "the Truth".

All this is the polar opposite of what Baha’is have been enjoined to do by Baha’u’llah, to investigate the truth independently. Everyone is free to interpret the Baha’i Writings in their own ways but since Baha’u’llah had a Covenant and appointed interpreters we have their writings to help us understand what Baha’u’llah wrote.

And I support the Bahai'i viewpoint on that.

Whereas it is true that no religion can be proven to be true, that does not mean that one religion is not true (or truer than the others).

Valid point.

I do not agree with you on this. Feeling good is not the purpose of life. Living a fantasy is very bad. Are you satisfied with living a fantasy when there is a true reality you could be living? If a religion is a fantasy how is that different from a drug-induced state? For emotional and physical health reasons religion is better than drugs, but the main problem with believing in a fantasy is they you will never discover reality.

I don't have an answer for this as it is subjective. It is a personal viewpoint of each individual. I for instance, joined a religion based on study and evidence, and left because of the same things. Most religious people I know join a religion not based on evidence but on emotion. They feel good, they have a hope, or they feel unity among people; very subjective things. I don't get it, but I think you and I don't get it because we are the opposite to them. i just know that in general, people are attracted to religion because of emotional. Karl Marx said "it is the opium of the people". He is right.

That is really a sad commentary on humans if most people do not join a religion to find truth. It is probably true that most people are there for emotional reasons and hope,and I have been accused of that by nonbelievers repeatedly. What I tell them is that I do not even like religion or God, so how could I be there for emotional reasons? I would ditch God and my religion in a heartbeat if it could be proven false. I can think of many things I would rather be doing, but this is now my responsibility because I took it on. I cannot be a half-believer and live for self while trying to promote my religion. That is hypocrisy.

I can relate to you on this. I was the same. It comes down to responsibility. But I think people fool themselves.

Okay, I understand. I was in the same position with that Hindu man. I told him I did not understand Hinduism so I could not discuss it but he thought he knew the Baha’i Faith better than I do. No not really, I have been a Baha’i for 48 ½ years. That man was so arrogant. You are a refreshing change from that. Really, what he was trying to do was to make Hinduism fit into Baha’i, but that is not possible because he believed a bunch of Avatars were Manifestations of God, and from a Baha’i perspective they were simply gurus. Maybe they were enlightened but they were not sent by God.

I can't stand arrogance. There are too many people who "know" they are right without all the evidence and are willfully ignorant and arrogant about other religions. They should focus on listening and it would benefit them more. Not listening and seeking understanding makes one look like a fool.

 

[calm]

Your pov, although popular, makes John's statements ambiguous.. Jesus is "with God", but then he "is God"?

Then just a few verses later, John writes: "No one has ever seen God"?

How muddy y'all make the clear waters of truth!

Whatever...

But just so you know, the John 1:1 pov of JW's agrees with others, even other trinitarians; it's not solely our construct, as you seem to imply.

▪ 1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

▪ 1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

▪ 1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

▪ 1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

▪ 1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

▪ 1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

▪ 1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

▪ 1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

▪ 1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

▪ 1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

▪ 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

▪ 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

▪ 1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[15]

▪ 1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)

▪ 1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

▪ 1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible

▪ 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

▪ 1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

▪ 1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

Jesus is "with God", but then he "is God"?

The Word was with God and God is the Word itself. Jesus(as person) Himself did not exist before His birth. Before his birth he was the Word. And what is the Word? The Word is the creation. When God says: Let there be light - then it is the Word. Through the Word God creates everything, the Word comes out of His mouth. He himself is the Word.

 

[TiggerII]

Scholars' explination for the "missing" definite article!

John 1:1
And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos e¯n ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agape¯ estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality. (Robertson's Word Pictures)

And the Word was God (kai theos e¯n ho logos)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But Theos, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Theos is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Theos would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. (Vincent's Word Studies)



The notable Greek scholars agree, by proper Greek grammer, the reason that the article is omitted here in John 1:1, is because John was defining who the "Word" was, not who "God" was! To include the article in John 1:1, would change the entire structure and meaning of the verse to be defining who "God" was, instead of defining who the "Word" was! Instead of saying "and the Word was God," by including the article it would say "and God was the Word" which was not the intent of John!

No doubt the Watchtower is aware of this fact, but has hidden it from their flock. If they were to reveal this truth to their subjects, their followers would realize they are lying about their false teachings about the Christ and this anti-christ group would cease to exist. Since John 1:1 is a key scripture identifying that Jesus is God, it is most vital for them to continue to hide the truth! Thomas knew the truth, and declared the deity of Christ when he finally believed:

John 20:28-29 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. [29] Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Source: John 1:1 What do scholars say?

Trinitarian scholars do not dare to criticize the traditional (trinitarian)translation of John 1:1c. A very few come close, however.

Such as trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course if you carefully examine my personal study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended. - Examining the Trinity Or more in-depth: Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c )

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer , can you please post them?
Appreciate it.

Heaven:

Matthew 5:19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

1 Peter 1:4 To an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,

John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 Chronicles 6:30 Then hear from heaven your dwelling place and forgive and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways, for you, you only, know the hearts of the children of mankind,

Immortal soul:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The spirit is synonymous with the soul. The spirit/soul returns to God who is in heaven.

Also please read this book entitled Heaven and Hell written by a Christian who broke away from orthodoxy and the Trinity beliefs.

 

[calm]

@tigger2


Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it! "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."( Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

The title page of the Watchtower Bible states, "Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony D.D. (1948 Reprint). They considered him to be scholar but he was not out of reach of their tampering.

The Watchtower misrepresented Dr. Westcott using his credentials and the reprinted Greek text of Dr. Westcott. Westcott identified the Word in John 1:1 with...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12).

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

Source: Scholars on Jn.1:1

 

[calm]

@tigger2

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same(Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.

Source: Scholars on Jn.1:1

 

[Samael_Khan]

This passage explains how the world is recreated by the Manifestations of God in every age:

“Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed.”

Here is the entire passage for context:

“From the foregoing passages and allusions it hath been made indubitably clear that in the kingdoms of earth and heaven there must needs be manifested a Being, an Essence Who shall act as a Manifestation and Vehicle for the transmission of the grace of the Divinity Itself, the Sovereign Lord of all. Through the Teachings of this Day Star of Truth every man will advance and develop until he attaineth the station at which he can manifest all the potential forces with which his inmost true self hath been endowed. It is for this very purpose that in every age and dispensation the Prophets of God and His chosen Ones have appeared amongst men, and have evinced such power as is born of God and such might as only the Eternal can reveal.

Can one of sane mind ever seriously imagine that, in view of certain words the meaning of which he cannot comprehend, the portal of God’s infinite guidance can ever be closed in the face of men? Can he ever conceive for these Divine Luminaries, these resplendent Lights either a beginning or an end? What outpouring flood can compare with the stream of His all-embracing grace, and what blessing can excel the evidences of so great and pervasive a mercy? There can be no doubt whatever that if for one moment the tide of His mercy and grace were to be withheld from the world, it would completely perish. For this reason, from the beginning that hath no beginning the portals of Divine mercy have been flung open to the face of all created things, and the clouds of Truth will continue to the end that hath no end to rain on the soil of human capacity, reality and personality their favors and bounties. Such hath been God’s method continued from everlasting to everlasting.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 67-69

“One who does not know God’s Messengers, however, is like a plant growing in the shade. Although it knows not the sun, it is, nevertheless, absolutely dependent on it. The great Prophets are spirits suns, and Bahá’u’lláh is the sun of this “day” in which we live. The suns of former days have warmed and vivified the world, and had those suns not shone, the earth would not be cold and dead, but it is the sunshine of today that alone can ripen the fruits which the suns of former days have kissed into life.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 72

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BNE/bne-59.html
So if I get understand it right: there is a certain line of reasoning which was discussed by Bahá’u’lláh (which would be cool to get a hold on to fully understand why he says the following is necessary) that the Kingdoms of Earth and Heaven needs a being to be manifested in order to impart divine teachings that will allow every man to manifest his full potential which he naturally has within him. So they are a guiding light that mankind needs to grow and advance. Those who aren't aware of the manifestations of God are still beneficially impacted by them but only at a limited rate. Do I have it right?

Yes, I am well aware of what JWs believe about the soul, that it is the breath of life so it dies when the body dies, but they have to ignore the New Testament in order to support that belief. Frankly, what I think is that they are dead set on having a resurrection of their body and living in a paradise on earth forever, so they do not really want to look at the verses in the gospels that refute that belief and say there is a soul that is immortal, and that there is a heaven where we go after we die. This is a psychological problem because if people are attached to a belief that gives me comfort and something they are looking forward to they are not going to be willing to look at other beliefs. I think that people should want to know what the truth is, whatever it is.

Actually I believe that that belief, of some living on earth and some in heaven was purely created to give their leaders a scriptural reason to have absolute authority over the rest of the group, as those who go to heaven are on par with Christ as they are heirs with him (Romans 8). Those who go to heaven are Christs brothers who Christ died for, he has a covenant with them, so they are really special. Christ did not die for the JW's who do not go to heaven, as Christ didn't make a covenant with them, and they can be nothing more than God's friends. Therefore they have salvation because they are helping Christs brothers. That is why only the anointed( those who go to heaven) eat the bread and drink the wine during the memorial service while the others watch. So you see, where certain people go to when resurrected, actually has a direct bearing on there importance, which is why JW's follow their leaders and trust them completely as their leaders are only those who go to heaven, the anointed. Christ directs the organisation through them. The JW's founder, Charles Taze Russell, did not believe this though. He believed that all in his bible students group had the same resurrection, the same hope, all were brothers of Christ. They were a select few who could see the truth. He believed that God's people existed in all denominations of Christianity and that not being in his group did not disqualify them from salvation. It was very different back then. The two class system belief only came much later in the organisations history. Russell wrote a whole book on his view of this called "The New Creation" which I have at home. He has some fascinating and thought provoking views, much deeper than what Witnesses have today. And yes, JW's have a psychological attachment to their beliefs rather than focusing on the facts, even though they have loads of reasoning behind their viewpoints (such as in the Insight Books). They focus on the hope and comfort. That is what drives them. Just ask them when you meet them in your neighbourhood. Really their beliefs are a commentary on their view of life. Some JW's had REALLY bad experiences in life and need that comfort and hope. So I don't blame them for wanting to belief in a hope. In fact I would be very hesitant to even speak what I see as the truth about the group to a few JW's I know, because I am scared that they might commit suicide. To some that comfort and hope is what is keeping them alive.

The soul animates the human body while we are alive on earth. The soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself, so the soul is responsible for the mind, senses and emotions as well as physical sensations. The body is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth, a place to house the soul. The soul is our self, our true reality. Interesting theory.

The soul is not the mind/brain. If it was, it could not continue to exist after the body dies. But it DOES continue to exist after the body dies.

The soul is our self, the sum total of who we are, our personality. The soul is responsible for animating the body, and thus the brain. It is the soul that is responsible for our consciousness. The soul works through the brain and mind while we are alive in a physical body, but when the body dies the soul leaves the body it continues to the spiritual world where it takes on another form.Consciousness continues after the body dies because the soul does not need the body to exist.

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

Interesting theory. I am not convinced it is reality as I need positive evidence, but at least the theory is possible.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The nature of the soul is not something humans can ever comprehend, as it is a sign of God and a complete mystery...

I do not know what “returns to God” actually means, nobody can ever know that. However, it is interesting how the verse above is so closely aligned with what Baha’u’llah wrote...

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155-156

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-81.html The bible doesn't elaborate much on what the breath of life is so the quotes you gave could certainly fit.

Matthew 16:23-26

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

No soul is ever actually destroyed, so to “destroy” or “lose” the soul in the verses above means being distant from God. The soul is destroyed in hell when it becomes a victim to self and passion but this is not God’s doing. People destroy their own souls by making the wrong choices and ending up far from God.

The soul (spirit) of man is immortal so it can never be extinguished. All souls continue to exist forever, but some souls have eternal life and others don’t.

“The immortality of the spirit is mentioned in the Holy Books; it is the fundamental basis of the divine religions. Now punishments and rewards are said to be of two kinds: first, the rewards and punishments of this life; second, those of the other world. But the paradise and hell of existence are found in all the worlds of God, whether in this world or in the spiritual heavenly worlds. Gaining these rewards is the gaining of eternal life. That is why Christ said, “Act in such a way that you may find eternal life, and that you may be born of water and the spirit, so that you may enter into the Kingdom.” 2” Some Answered Questions, p. 223

“Likewise, the rewards of the other world are the eternal life which is clearly mentioned in all the Holy Books, the divine perfections, the eternal bounties and everlasting felicity….The rewards of the other world are peace, the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God in the world of eternity.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 224-225

“The meaning is that the life of the Kingdom is the life of the spirit, the eternal life, and that it is purified from place, like the spirit of man which has no place. For if you examine the human body, you will not find a special spot or locality for the spirit, for it has never had a place; it is immaterial. It has a connection with the body like that of the sun with this mirror. The sun is not within the mirror, but it has a connection with the mirror.” Some Answered Questions, p. 242

Those people who are distant from God do not have eternal life, although their soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies.

“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 243

Your definition of "destroying the soul" doesn't make sense as the context doesn't give me reason to think of it in that way, as both soul and body in that passage have the same destruction in hell. John 3:16 says that everlasting life is the reward of those who believe in Christ. Those who do not believe will perish, which is the opposite of everlasting life. Immortality is the reward of those faithful. Thus I would interpret "losing ones soul" as it being destroyed.

Your last explanation doesn't make sense from the Bible's perspective, at least from the scriptures that we have discussed.

 

[TiggerII]

to T2 from calm (blue):

Many Bible scholars you mentioned do not support your opinion, but oppose it. You twist things either consciously or unconsciously.

[As I have shown you before, the 'hate JWs' site you keep quoting is filled with inaccuracies and outright lies.]

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation [1969 ed.]): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. ...."


In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

[Mantey (if he did indeed write such a letter) was either suffering from dementia or was actually being untruthful. Here is the quote from p. 1158 of the 1969 ed. of the KIT:


"on page 148, paragraph (3) [D&M] says about the subject of a copulative sentence ... sometimes the article makes the the subject distinct from the predicate. Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, euporion d' en to korion, but the place was a market, corresponds with what is stated in John 1:1. In both examples abve the article used differentiates the subject. The market mentioned by Xenophon was not the only market. Correspondingly the same argument could be used respecting the Greek theos without the article ho in John 1:1. Instead of translating John 1:1 [as D&M did] and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with Xenophon;s statement and the place was a market."

Notice this cannot be a misquote since it is a paraphrase, not a quote from D&M.

And here is a real quote from the D&M Grammar: "(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6, euporion d' en to korion, but the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. - p. 148, Macmillan Publ., 1955. (Emphasis mine.)

The example given by D&M in their Grammar is truly parallel in word order to John 1:1c. And yet they have translated it exactly as John 1:1c should have been translated! Besides the 18 examples from the writings of John I have already given you which show the same thing, we see the same construction translated by different trinitarian grammarians:

Prof. J. Gresham Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.

And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” – Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999. (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)

In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).

Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” – Baker Book House, 1989.

I'm relatively certain all these trinitarian scholars (like Mantey and others) would deny that John 1:1c can be translated in the same manner.

Further more, again, look at all the other uses of parallel constructions used by the author of John's Gospel himself:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all


H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all


H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all


H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - liar (he) is. "a liar"

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - beggar (he) was. "a beggar"

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - prophet (he) is. "a prophet"

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - sinner (he) is. "a sinner"

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - hireling (he) is. "a hireling"

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - thief (he) was. "a thief"

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - liar (he) is. "a liar"

I had intended to answer your post in full, but on second thought everything anyone needs to know is right there in this post. This is what NT Grammarians should be looking at, but obviously somehow 'overlook' it to further their subjective view.

This is how Colwell, Harner, Walllace and others claim to verify their preferred renderings of John. But if you examine their writings, they ignore the truly parallel examples above and most often choose from the examples which are exceptions to 'prove' their rules for a Trinitarian John 1:1c.

The proper translation of John 1:1c as found in the NT Greek texts really shows who it is that falsifies the Bible.]

 

[Samael_Khan]

@tigger2

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same(Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.

E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

Many of these Greek scholars are world-renowned whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in their publications to help them look reputable. Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the-textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this quality who insist that John l: l cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

I do want to say that there are some scholars that translate the word was a God or divine but they are in the very low percentages. If they were ever in a discussion with the scholars afore mentioned it would be clear they would not be able to hold a candle to their understanding. Yet JWs and a few other groups do run to these men's opinions to prop up their teaching.

Source: Scholars on Jn.1:1

These are the reasons why they had to scrap the Trinity brochure.

The JW's deliberate lying about others quotes would pretty much show that they are not God's people.

Tigger2's rebuttals are interesting though.

 

[Samael_Khan]

to T2 from calm (blue):

Many Bible scholars you mentioned do not support your opinion, but oppose it. You twist things either consciously or unconsciously.

[As I have shown you before, the 'hate JWs' site you keep quoting is filled with inaccuracies and outright lies.]

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation [1969 ed.]): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. ...."


In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

[Mantey (if he did indeed write such a letter) was either suffering from dementia or was actually being untruthful. Here is the quote from p. 1158 of the 1969 ed. of the KIT:


"on page 148, paragraph (3) [D&M] says about the subject of a copulative sentence ... sometimes the article makes the the subject distinct from the predicate. Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, euporion d' en to korion, but the place was a market, corresponds with what is stated in John 1:1. In both examples abve the article used differentiates the subject. The market mentioned by Xenophon was not the only market. Correspondingly the same argument could be used respecting the Greek theos without the article ho in John 1:1. Instead of translating John 1:1 [as D&M did] and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with Xenophon;s statement and the place was a market."

Notice this cannot be a misquote since it is a paraphrase, not a quote from D&M.

And here is a real quote from the D&M Grammar: "(3) With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence. The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis 1:4:6, euporion d' en to korion, but the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. - p. 148, Macmillan Publ., 1955. (Emphasis mine.)

The example given by D&M in their Grammar is truly parallel in word order to John 1:1c. And yet they have translated it exactly as John 1:1c should have been translated! Besides the 18 examples from the writings of John I have already given you which show the same thing, we see the same construction translated by different trinitarian grammarians:

Prof. J. Gresham Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951.

And In Exercise 8 (p.44) of the Rev. Dr. Alfred Marshall’s New Testament Greek Primer, the noted trinitarian scholar asks us to translate phoneus esti into English. (Notice that the predicate noun [phoneus, ‘murderer’] precedes the verb [esti, ‘he is’].) The answer is given on p. 153 where Dr. Marshall translates it as “He is a murderer.” – Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

And Prof. N. Clayton Croy on p. 35 of his A Primer of Biblical Greek translates prophetes estin ho anthropos (literally, “prophet is the man”) as “The man is a prophet.” - Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1999. (Emphasis, as usual, is mine.)

In Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson we find on p. 64 two interesting Greek clauses and their translations by Dobson: the clauses are: (1) prophetes estin and (2) prophetes en. In both of these the predicate noun (prophetes) comes before the verb (‘he is’ and ‘he was’).

Here is how Dobson has translated these two clauses: “He is a prophet.” And “He was a prophet.” – Baker Book House, 1989.

I'm relatively certain all these trinitarian scholars (like Mantey and others) would deny that John 1:1c can be translated in the same manner.

Further more, again, look at all the other uses of parallel constructions used by the author of John's Gospel himself:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all


H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all


H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all


H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text

………………………………................................

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - liar (he) is. "a liar"

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - beggar (he) was. "a beggar"

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - prophet (he) is. "a prophet"

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - sinner (he) is. "a sinner"

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - hireling (he) is. "a hireling"

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - thief (he) was. "a thief"

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - liar (he) is. "a liar"

I had intended to answer your post in full, but on second thought everything anyone needs to know is right there in this post. This is what NT Grammarians should be looking at, but obviously somehow 'overlook' it to further their subjective view.

This is how Colwell, Harner, Walllace and others claim to verify their preferred renderings of John. But if you examine their writings, they ignore the truly parallel examples above and most often choose from the examples which are exceptions to 'prove' their rules for a Trinitarian John 1:1c.

The proper translation of John 1:1c as found in the NT Greek texts really shows who it is that falsifies the Bible.]

Where are you getting your quotes from out of interest? Is it from a source that quotes individual verses out of books or do you actually have the books with you to reference in full.

The misquoting problems come into the picture because the people quoted say that the JW's pick verses and omit vital information from those verses which would clarify the context, thus parentheses are used in the quotes.

So full context rather than proof texting certain verse would prove your case.

I watched a video with Robert Price and he says that the JW's interpretation of John 1:1c is entirely valid as translation is very influenced by theology.

 

[calm]

@Israel Khan
The place ("hell") where souls are tormented for all eternities is there.(Revelation 14:9-11)
When a person's body dies, the soul goes either to the Paradise or to the pre-Hell (realm of the dead).
People must stay there until the Day of Judgement. The Pre hell and the Paradise, for example, are mentioned in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus also came directly to the Paradise after his death. When Jesus said to the criminal on the cross: Today you will be with me in paradise.-
Luke 23:43
Then he meant it literally. Not only people go to pre hell, also the angels who had sexual intercourse with the human women(Genesis 6:1-4) were thrown there in.(2 Peter 2:4)

Important information about paradise:
There is a big misunderstanding. The Heaven is not the paradise and the paradise is not the eternal earth. As I said before, Paradise is the place where the souls of (good) people will go in and have to stay until of the day of judgement. Paradise is under the earth. (Matthew 12:40) Heaven is a place that is not in this world. You have to imagine it this way. The world is a developed game of a programmer. The programmer is of course not in his game, he is in his own world. So it is also with the heaven, the heaven is in the world of God(of the programmer)
Not all good people go to heaven. There are 2 groups. One group will be called the chosen ones (the 144,000 Hebrews), they will lose their bodies and be like angels and reign with God the Father in heaven. The other group is called the righteous, this group consists of all nations. They will reign with God the Son for all eternity on earth.

 

[JJ50]

@Israel Khan
The place ("hell") where souls are tormented for all eternities is there.(Revelation 14:9-11)
When a person's body dies, the soul goes either to the Paradise or to the pre-Hell (realm of the dead).
People must stay there until the Day of Judgement. The Pre hell and the Paradise, for example, are mentioned in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus also came directly to the Paradise after his death. When Jesus said to the criminal on the cross: Today you will be with me in paradise.-
Luke 23:43
Then he meant it literally. Not only people go to pre hell, also the angels who had sexual intercourse with the human women(Genesis 6:1-4) were thrown there in.(2 Peter 2:4)

Important information about paradise:
There is a big misunderstanding. Paradise is neither the heaven nor the eternal earth. As I said before, Paradise is the place where the souls of (good) people will come after their death. Paradise is under the earth. (Matthew 12:40) Heaven is a place that is not in this world. You have to imagine it this way. The world is a developed game of a programmer. The programmer is of course not in his game, he is in his own world. So it is also with the heaven, the heaven is in the world of God(of the programmer)
Not all good people go to heaven. There are 2 groups. One group will be called the chosen ones (the 144,000 Hebrews), they will lose their bodies and be like angels and reign with God the Father in heaven. The other group is called the righteous, this group consists of all nations. They will reign with God the Son for all eternity on earth.

Total garbage!