by A-Team 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
I am wondering that if ya 3 here realize that the word God, in the old testiment (Elohim), was plural almost 5 out of every 6 times it was used and never was really intended to be used for Jehovah only, unless written as Eloah?
'elohim (formal plural), is indeed the default Hebrew term for "god" (singular meaning). And you are right it doesn't apply to Yhwh only. Also to Baal, Chemosh, etc.
Without debating the meaning of this text, my point is merely to show how the WTS and several of their apologists such as Nelson Herle, have, over the years, "reasoned" on this matter. Simply because the "Theos" in the final clause is anarthrous.
1 Back in the 50s their excuse was that they were not unique in their "rendering" since others, going before said the same thing. An example pointed to was the Greber NT, and we know who he was. Over the years others have been brought up. Youngs literal translation, in a footnote says "Lit a God", and Abner Kneeland, not recognized as a scholar also says "a God" as does Greek orthodox teacher Tomanek. Note however that all say "God" with a capital "G", at least indicating that whatever else they meant to say they certainly did not endorse the WT rendering. Both Yg and Kneeland call the Father "a God" at Lu 20:38, indicating in some way, a connection. To Tomanek the "word" was a concept, an "it", because he says, in vs 2, "IT was in the beginning with God" which may have coloured his translation.
Over the years they have also quoted certain German scholars, significantly translating their renderings back into English thus indicating some sort of backhanded support.For instance Siegfried Schultz's translation of "Ein Gott [oder Gott von Art] war das Wort" is rendered into English by the writers of the 85 edition of KIT as "And a god [or of a divine kind] was the Word'' I have, however been told that a closer rendering of the German original is: "And a God [or God by nature] was the Word"
2 They have also suggested that the lack of the article in the final clause indicates a shift in meaning for the word "God" making it mean simply "a mighty one" So that John is made to say: "And the Word was a mighty one" Since Jesus at Jo 10:35 called the judges of ancient Israel "gods" in the plural, because they were indeed '' mighty ones'', it then allows this understanding at Jo 1:1 according to the WTS. However, because the judges collectivly [in the plural] are called "gods" none of them individually [in the singular] could ever have announced that he was "A God" That would have been blasphemy. This inability to distinguish the significance between singular and plural has escaped the WTS. The word "theos" in the singular is never referred to a "mighty one" It is always either the true God, or, like the devil or even ones belly, a false god.
3 The most sophisticated means used to justify the WT rendering of Jo 1;1, is the way they have in recent years, misrepresented reputed scholars such as Philip Harner. Quoting from his "Qualitative Anathrous Nouns" published in the JBL, vol 92, and released in 1973, they rightly point out that he says: "An anathrous predicate preceding a verb, is primarily qualitative in meaning. It indicates that the Logos has the nature of Theos"
The problem here is that the WTS have completely misunderstood the meaning of Harners use of the word "qualitative" They suggest he is making it mean "Adjectival", hence that the word was "godlike" or "godly" or something similar.Which is certainly not his intention.In that same article of his, which the WT has selectively quoted, he gives the grammarian's definition of the word as follows: "A qualitative noun expresses the nature or character of the subject" [ pg 86,87] The entire point of Harner's article is not to argue against the Word being God, but rather against the point that the Word was God theFather. He is not denying the Trinity, rather he is affirming it over against Modalism.
[ I acknowledge with gatitude, my use of Prof Robert Bowman and his book "JWs Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John", whose work I have shamelessly plundered for this material. Thanks Friend]
Cheers
Hi moggy lover,
I agree with most of your argument but I don't quite understand this:
However, because the judges collectivly [in the plural] are called "gods" none of them individually [in the singular] could ever have announced that he was "A God" That would have been blasphemy. This inability to distinguish the significance between singular and plural has escaped the WTS.
Leaving the capital aside, I don't see why every one of those who are collectively called "gods" should not individually be called "god". But perhaps it is not what you meant.
Ok now, how about these definitions for the word Elohim:
Like I stated abouve, all of this is still very much a mystery that
Ok now, how about these definitions for the word Elohim:
Like I stated abouve, all of this is still very much a mystery that won't be solved until Jesus' return.
Ok now, how about these definitions for the word Elohim:
Like I stated abouve, all of this is still very much a mystery that won't be solved until Jesus'
Sadly, they don't. If they did they would ask themselves how they got involved in that mess. By then, years have gone by and they have no 'real' friends left. Their lives are now revolving around their KH and they can't imagine life without it.
A-Team,
Interesting trinity of posts...
Hi, Narkissos, my point was to show how the WTS uses its own inferential logic as a funtional substitute for revelatory theology rather than Revelation itself. It is the WT contention that in the NT, the word "theos" [in the singular] whether with or without the article has three seperate meanings: 1 To refer to the One True God of Heb and Christian theology 2 To false gods or gods which imply some form of idolatry 3 To any creature human or otherwise, which by virtue of its "might" or "authority" over others can be termed "god"
It is this third meaning with which we take issue. Revelation admittedly can be used to identify the first two references to "theos" For instance the term occurs 1317 times in the UBS 4 NT text, and all but 6 can be used for referring to the true God. These 6 - Ac 7:43, 12:22, 28 :6, 2Cor4:4, Phil3:19, 2Th2:7 - all admittedly refer to either a false god or, since they are objects of idolatry, to things regarded such by the user. [Also admittedly, some texts such as Jo 10:33, and Ac17:23, are not always clear and subject to debate. However the point is still that we are simply not clear into which of the two categories to place them]
However, it is now up to the WTS to show us where a revelatory exposition of Scripture can lead us to accept their third contention. Ie, that the word Theos in the singular can mean what they say it means. Since our interest is in the singular use of the word Theos, it is legitimate to restrict ourselves to this word alone. In fact there is no evidence that anywhere in the 1317 applications in the NT where Theos is used, such a conclusion can be drawn.
The sole point of reference that the WTS can point to is Jo 10:35, where the plural, Theoi, and not the singular Theos is used. The WTS deliberately blurs the distinction between the Heb Elohim which may be either singular or plural and the Greek Theoi, which is admitted to be exclusively plural. Not finding any revelation of Scripture to back their claim, they then resort to inference, and "logic"
They reason as follows: Judges in the plural = Theoi
Therefore it is "logical": that a judge =Theos. This is the point of difference.
The constraints of Jewish monotheism would never conclude that a judge in the singular could therefore "logically" be called "god" ie Theos, "logic" aside, we must be persuaded by Scripture, and it alone. It is Scripture that must show us that Theos in the singular can have a meaning beyond the two meanings already prescribed by Revelation.What may appear "logical", can if it runs, counter to monotheistic revelation be in fact "human wisdom" Which means that no one, unless He is in fact the True God, or an object of idolatry, can be called "theos" - "theoi" as a collective , yes, because revelation endorses it. But Theos, in the singular, no.
Rather Jewish monotheism would reason: Judges in the plural = Theoi
Judge in the singular= a judge
In the parlance of Greek speaking Jewish monotheism Theoi can indeed have various meanings, but whenever it is used it cannot ever be used with reference to the True God. [Which is the difference between it and the Heb Elohim] Since the plural application always refers to false gods, no Jew, such as the apostle John would infer that the singular can be derivatory from the plural, and thus applicable to the Son. The plural functions, in the monotheism of Greek speaking Jewry, and Christianity as well, as a seperate unit, and it would be inappropriate to derive a singular meaning from it, even on the grounds of "logic"
Jesus' use of Ps 82:6 was, I believe, not an attempt to justify an extraordinary meaning to the singular "theos" but to deflect a charge of blasphemy laid at his feet by His detractors. Oddly enough He did use the singular, but not for Theos. He applied the singular "Huios" used in this Psalm in the plural - "Huoi" - for these same judges, but significantly only for Himself. Implying, I think that even the term "sons" in the plural, cannot legitimately in the singular be applied to any particular judge. The singular had a specific application, and I think, both Jo 10:36 and the opening words of Hebrews bear this out.
It is now up to the WTS to show us where theos [in the singular] = a mighty one. Without any application of "logic" and based solely on Scripture
I have also yet to see any scholar who endorses such a view. For instance, BDAG, in their treatment of theos, only apply it in the two ways prescribed above. They do, however, on pg 358, make the interesting observation, based on an ancient 6CAD author, that Roman children of antiquity called their parents Theoi. However there is no evidence that an individual parent was therefore logically referred to as Theos
Cheers
I am wondering that if ya 3 here realize that the word God, in the old testiment (Elohim), was plural almost 5 out of every 6 times it was used and never was really intended to be used for Jehovah only, unless written as Eloah? A-Team
A-Team,
The plurality of Elohim is a different point altogether. You initially asserted that JWs are blind because they fail to educate themselves in the matter of capitalization in the John 1:1 text.
Qcmbrand Nark have revealed why your reasoning is faulty. It would not cost you very much to exercise some humility to say that you got that wrong and that your condescending tone against JWs in this matter is unwarranted. It is a shame in making monsters of JWs, we behave like ogres ourselves.
INQ
