IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep 103 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Earnest

  stocwach:

  I think it is intellectual one-upmanship to suggest knowledge of Greek or Hebrew means that a person understands the Bible better than someone without that knowledge. Even the most educated are not immune to prejudice and bias. But you really should do your homework if you are going to say:

  "you are wrong again--the definite article 'ho' does not appear in the original Greek in John 20:28, nor in John 1:1, nor in Revelation 3:12, so your argument is truly baseless".

  The relevant passages are:

  John 20:28 : "...ho kurios mou kai HO THEOS mou" which means "...the lord of me and THE GOD of me".

  John 1:1: "...kai ho logos en pros TON THEON..." which means "...and the word was toward THE GOD...".

  Revelation 3:12: "...nao TOU THEOU mou...to onoma TOU THEOU mou kai to onoma tes poleos TOU THEOU mou...ek tou ouranou apo TOU THEOU mou..." which means "...divine habitation OF THE GOD of me...the name OF THE GOD of me and the name of the city OF THE GOD of me...out of the heaven from THE GOD of me...".

  Possibly you didn't realise that John was using the definite article ("ho") because in Greek it is declined like a noun. The forms that go with words in the masculine gender are: "ho" (nominative singular), "ton" (accusative singular), "tou" (genitive singular), "to" (dative singular), "hoi" (nominative plural), "tous" (accusative plural), ton (genitive plural), "tois" (dative plural). However, in my previous post I expressly explained that in Revelation it was using the genitive case so I can only conclude your ignorance is wilful.

  I didn't respond to your remarks on creation simply because there was nothing to comment on. You concluded : "The bottom line is the only way anyone objectively can truly reconcile harmony in these Scriptures regardless of what one believes is by acknowledging that Jesus has deity." I have no argument with that.

  However, I do think that the direction you are trying to take this thread is more appropriate to a thread such as "God is Jesus" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26273&site=3) where many trinitarian arguments have already been considered. If you wish to stick to the subject of this thread I am happy to respond but see no point in condoning a change of subject simply to repeat what has been said elsewhere.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 6 August 2002 16:37:28
• 

  jgnat

  Bleep, you misread my original question. I provided a link to ANOTHER organization (hint: the text is blue) that is distributing the bible for free. Is THAT organization approved by Jehovah?
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  The obvious reason why you didn't comment on the creation dilemma is because you have no explanation on how these scriptures can be in complete harmony with your belief system, because the reality is that these scriptures are in complete contradiction with your belief system. The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus has deity, therefore, for you to consider the NWT as a valid translation is baseless, as it has been altered to fit JW theology that Jesus doesn't have deity. You cannot selectively choose scripture that adheres to your beliefs, but ignore others that are in direct conflict with those beliefs. This however, is what the NWT committee has done, yet you still expect us to believe the NWT is a reliable, accurate translation, when you clearly have failed to show why it is so. It certainly is not based on what the actual Greek text says in the scriptures mentioned in this thread.

  You say you have no argument that deity in Jesus is the only way these scriptures can be in harmony. If you truly believe that, then why do you subscribe to the accuracy of a translation that is a complete 180 degrees from that belief?

  Again, your explanation for ho theos is irrelevant, for it does nothing to recognize the creation dilemma. You either take the entire Bible to be inspired, or none of it. I choose to take it as inspired, and therefore I prefer to base my belief system on what the Bible says, rather then altering the Bible to fit my belief system based on a presumption of what the original author actually meant.

  The bottom line is 99% of the population is not going to reference the original Greek to see whether an indefinite or definite article exists. Therefore, I truly believe any translation that closely conveys what the original Greek text actually says proves to be the most reliable for accurate knowledge to be gained by means of the Holy Spirit, and the more translations that are consistent in conveying this also lends credence to being reliable, rather than an isolated rogue translation here and there that is completely altered from the majority, based on one Greek grammar scholars assumptions of what the author was trying to say. As an example, in the case of John 1:1, I have seen considerably more testimony from scholars that state there is no basis for the indefinite article as the NWT portrays it, compared to the few that say there is a basis for it.

  It is obvious you are set in your ways, and no matter how much logical reasoning you are presented with, it appears it will not make much difference.
• 

  Earnest

  stocwach:

  You say: "The only explanation that makes sense is that Jesus has deity, therefore, for you to consider the NWT as a valid translation is baseless, as it has been altered to fit JW theology that Jesus doesn't have deity."

  According to my dictionary "deity" is:
  1. a god or goddess.
  2. the state of being divine.
  3. the rank, status, or position of a god.
  4. the nature or character of God.

  You then go on to criticise the NW translation of John 1:1 which says that "the Word was a god." I would think that could also be translated as "the Word has deity." A couple of translations do translate it as "the Word was divine" which all seem to me much of a muchness.

  So, in your opinion, is the NWT invalid because it does describe Jesus as "a god" or because it doesn't convey the sense that Jesus "has deity"?

  If you do consider it invalid to describe Jesus as "a god" can you explain the difference between that and saying "the Word was divine", especially in light of meanings 1 & 2 of the word "deity".

  You also say: "The bottom line is 99% of the population is not going to reference the original Greek to see whether an indefinite or definite article exists."

  That is probably true but the context of our discussion was what John meant when he wrote of "ho theos" and in the Jewish world that invariably referred to God the Father. So my question remains as to whether you do not have some difficulty with Thomas' expression "the lord of me and THE GOD of me".

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 7 August 2002 15:2:22
• 

  Bleep

  Crazydrinker made another assumption that I do not support the WT. I asked where in the NWT does it support child abuse. The topic is mainly about the NWT since the WT is another publication and from JW's Organization going along with everything in the NWT of the Holy Scriptures. (Mainly for being an active student of the Bible)

  We should be able to see that I am right again about the question I have raised. The NWT is not the Watchtower Magazine. Just think about what a magazine is and what a Bible is. A magazine is new material for our time for dealing with modern problems and new ways to understand the Bible. Many magazines can only help people for a while and then a new magazine will have to be made. That is keeping with God's promise of caring for his people in our day. Now since we see nothing wrong with the NWT Bible we have to go to another publication. Which publication do YOU think some ridiculers in our day will make fun of?
• 

  Bleep

  Those poor Gideons wrote, "The demand for Scriptures in these areas far exceeds our supplies that we are able to purchase through our donations."
• 

  Earnest

  In John 20:28 Thomas had just seen the resurrected Christ and had apparently felt the wounds on his hands and in his side, and he said "My Lord and my God!"

  I have previously suggested that any who do not believe the Father and Son are the same person (a heresy called Modalistic Monarchianism) would find difficulty with this verse. A consideration of the thirteen other occurrences of the expression "my God" in the N.T. does help to see why:

  Matthew 27:46 "About the ninth hour Jesus called out...'MY GOD, MY GOD, why have you forsaken me?'"

  Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus called out...'MY GOD, MY GOD, why have you forsaken me?'"

  John 20:17 "Jesus said to [Mary]: 'Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to MY GOD and your God."'"

  Romans 1:8 "First of all, I [Paul] give thanks to MY GOD through Jesus Christ concerning all of you..."

  Phillipians 1:2,3 "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I [Paul] thank MY GOD always upon every remembrance of you"

  Philemon 3,4 "May you people have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I [Paul] always thank MY GOD when I make mention of you in my prayers"

  Revelation 3:2 "...I [Jesus] have not found your deeds fully performed before MY GOD."

  Revelation 3:12 "The one that conquers - I [Jesus] will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD...and I will write upon him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the new Jerusalem which descend out of heaven from MY GOD, and that new name of mine."

  Ten of the thirteen expressions are actually Jesus saying "my God", both before and after his resurrection. In two of the remaining three Paul has just referred to God our Father and in all three God is expressly distinct from Jesus Christ. Thus in every instance here the expression "my God" refers to God the Father.

  The question may be asked - why is the definite article ("the") when applied to God so much more relevant in Greek than it is in English. For example, the Greek of John 1:1 says that "the Word was with [literally, 'toward'] the God" but in English it translates as "the Word was with God".

  The answer is what German bible scholars called the "sitz im leben", the "settings in life" or cultural setting of what is written.

  If we consider the expression that Pilate used when presenting Jesus to the Jews: "Behold! The man!", the definite article is used in both Greek and English because it is referring to THE man, that particular man. If that had been translated as "Behold! Man!" it would have conveyed a different sense to that which Pilate intended. But when we refer to God there is normally no need to distinguish him from other gods because we do not live in a polytheistic society. That was not true of those who used the Greek language in the first century. If the Jews did use "Jehovah" or the Greek equivalent they would not say "the Jehovah" because there was only one, but if they referred to him as "theos" he would always be "ho theos" because it indicated who he was rather than what he was. This is also discussed at greater length by AlanF in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26273&site=3&page=2. By the way, where is Alan? I miss the old curmudgeon.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 8 August 2002 22:38:50
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  I believe the NWT is invalid because it describes Jesus as "a god", which is polytheism and something the Bible does not teach. Another way to put this is that it doesn't convey the full Deity of Jesus. Again, the only other possibility then is that Jesus is a "false god", and therefore not worthy of credence. There is no in between. John here does not use the Greek adjective "theios" to describe a mere divine or god like quality, therefore there is no difference between saying "the Word was a god" or the Word was divine". They are both incorrect. John was a monotheistic Jew, who would simply not call a creature "theos". John 1:3 again is crucial, because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning. This is a major problem for you Earnest that you simply cannot reconcile. We also know Jesus is not simply a godlike creature, like an angel, thanks to Hebrews 1:6 KJV: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (of course again, the biased NWT translates this as "obeisance", because again, to not do so would contradict JW theology). What's even more revealing though is what is found in vs. 8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." So here we have the Father declaring the son to be God, again affirming full Deity and everlastingness.

  I will address your question relating to John 20:28 shortly.
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  I forgot to mention Hebrews 1:10, which again is along the creation issue that you have an insurmountable problem with:

  And, 'You, Lord, have laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the works of Your hands."

  Here clearly the Son is proclaimed as the Creator.
• 

  stocwach

  Earnest,

  OK, thanks for bringing up "ho theos", because I did some research on it, and learned a lot, and one of the things that I learned is you couldn't be more wrong in using this as an argument in your behalf.

  "Ho theos" is a title for the one True God, and is used in the NT 39 times as a title for the one True God, NOT one of the 3 distinct persons of God--"Father"--as you put it! The True God of the Bible is made up of 3 distinct persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. You have misled the readers of this forum, and it would be noteworthy of you to retract your explanation of this title, as you clearly have been deceptive in this area.

  So in answer to your question, now that I understand the facts of "ho theos", I have absolutely no problem with what Thomas said, and obviously Jesus didn't either.