NAILING DOWN the fraud of John 1:1 by demonstration

by TerryWalstrom 62 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Call me crazy, but I love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.

  In the following video, the teacher really nails Jehovah's Witnesses on John 1:1 with utter simplicity.

  Begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.

  I've never seen or heard of this before.

  
  

  
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5QKJ7tmbg

  
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  In the above lesson, the Professor is contrasting the Westcott and Hort text against the Textus Receptus.

  He establishes how many modern Bibles use Westcott and Hort INSTEAD of the Textus Receptus.

  He points out the reason given and what it is bogus.

  Those using Westcott and Hort say the manuscript evidence is earlier than the Textus Receptus and THEREFORE, more reliable.

  But wait---

  The Professor demonstrates by using quotations of Early Church Fathers who lived in EARLIER centuries (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) how flawed this premise is.

  Texts omitted in Westcott and Hort can easily BE FOUND hundreds of years earlier. 

  Are these 'found' texts in the Textus Receptus? YES. 

  The difference in readings leads to all sorts of problems in modern translations such as the New World Translation. 

  The order of the words (Subject instead of predicate nominative) in John 1:1 makes all the difference in the world for Jehovah's Witnesses' bogus rendering of "a god."

  
  

  So, the problem disappears when you get rid of Westcott and Hort and stick to Textus Receptus.
• 

  jhine

  Marking 
• 

  disposable hero of hypocrisy

  I kinda wish I could get my head round all this,  but it's a rabbit hole that,  quite simply,  I can't be ARSED to delve into. 
• 

  Slidin Fast

  Nicely put dhoh. It's hard to get excited about biblical exegesis when your faith in the bible has been driven out of you. The trinity, true or false?  It used to be an issue for me but now? Not so much.
• 

  lurkernomore

  I totally hear you dhoh and sf!  As much as some of this is interesting I can't help but think, why would an intelligent creator make it so bloody complicated to make himself understood. Not just that but also that he had to pass this nonsensical dribble down though dozens of channels, when he could simply TELL us what to expect and what he expects from us.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  The subject "God" is in the arse end of the new translations because of the source texts of Westcott and Hort.

  By using the Textus Receptus instead, God is the subject rather than the predicate nominative, which leaves Jehovah's Witnesses with nothing to hide behind in rendering "a" god.

  I find that very simple and elegant. 
• 

  lurkernomore

  I have to agree Terry. I mean we all know from previous research that John 1:1 was changed to fit JW doctrine, but it's great to see just how wrong they've got it. It's not just a case of inserting 'a' before God but the entire sentence structure as it should be is corrupted in a lot of modern translations. 
• 

  myelaine

  dear Terry...

  thank you, beloved. I watched the whole video.

  love michelle <3
• 

  Gentledawn

  Here's another place to research John 1:1 (about as dry as a cracker as far as fun goes, tho... lol)
  http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm