NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos


    This is quite interesting. At the very least it casts some light on GJohn (and its specific uses of egô eimi) as one singular expression and outstanding development of the (probably universal and timeless) narrative and literary motif of recognition (in "our" literature, from the Joseph novella to the pseudo-Clementines or the Gnostic Gospels, via the Synoptic stories of Jesus walking on the sea, Mark 6:50//, or apparitions, Luke 24:39).

  • rocky

    Thanks Leolaia for the info but the testament of Job is not an inspired part of the bible...

    It seems that in the WTlibrary nothing can be found about it... but surely it is or looks to be an



  • Narkissos
  • rocky







    reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go′ei·mi′].’” (NE,KJ,TEV,JB,NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT,Mo,CBW, and SE.)

    Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go′ei·mi′ as a title to the holy spirit.

    Says AGrammaroftheGreekNewTestamentintheLightofHistoricalResearch, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi′] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go′ei·mi′] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.

    See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.

  • rocky

    T he word eimi can mean more then "is" or "am".....

    W 08 4/1pp.27-28TheEucharist—TheFactsBehindtheRitual

    “This Means”or“This Is”?

    Granted, some Bible translations render Jesus’ words this way: “Take and eat; this is my body,” and, “Drink all of you, because this is my blood.” (Matthew 26:26-28, ConferenzaEpiscopaleItaliana;TheNewJerusalemBible) It is also true that the Greek word e·stin?, a form of the Greek verb “to be,” essentially means “is.” But the same verb can also mean “signify.” Interestingly, in many versions of the Bible, this verb is frequently translated “mean” or “stand for.” It is the context that determines the most precise rendering. For instance, at Matthew 12:7, e·stin is rendered “means” in many Bible translations: “If you had known what this means [Greek, e·stin]: I want mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the blameless.”—CEI;Douay


    In this regard, many respected Bible scholars have agreed that the word “is” does not accurately render the thought Jesus was expressing here. For example, Jacques Dupont considered the culture and society in which Jesus lived and concluded that “the most natural” rendering of the verse should be: “This means my body” or, “This represents my body.”

    At any rate, Jesus could not have meant that his followers were literally to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why not? After the Flood of Noah’s day, when God gave man permission to eat the flesh of animals, he directly forbade man to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) This command was repeated in the Mosaic Law, which Jesus obeyed fully. (Deuteronomy 12:23; 1 Peter 2:22) And the apostles were inspired by holy spirit to renew the command against consuming blood, making that law binding upon all Christians. (Acts 15:20, 29) Would Jesus institute an observance that would require his followers to violate a sacred decree of Almighty God? Impossible!

    Clearly, then, Jesus used the bread and wine as symbols. The unleavened bread meant, or represented, his sinless body that would be sacrificed. The red wine signified his blood that would be poured out “in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.”—Matthew 26:28.


    According to Matthew 26:26 in the NewWorldTranslation, Jesus, when instituting the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, says of the bread that he passes to his disciples: “This means my body.” Most other translations render this verse: “This is my body,” and this is used to support the doctrine that during the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal, the bread literally becomes Christ’s flesh. The word translated in the NewWorldTranslation as “means” (es·tin′, a form of ei·mi′) comes from the Greek word meaning “to be,” but it can also signify “to mean.” Thus, Thayer’s Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament says that this verb “is often i.q. [equivalent to] todenote,signify,import.” Indeed, “means” is a logical translation here. When Jesus instituted the Last Supper, his flesh was still on his bones, so how could the bread have been his literal flesh?

  • JustHuman14

    Point one: WT leaders and writting department DON'T HAVE A CLUE of the Hellenic language. They translated from the English NWT to the Greek instead of taking the original Hellenic test, when they tried to abuse the Greek NWT

    Point two: Do you know any Scholar of the Hellenic language(not to mention the Greek Orthodox Church that is amazed by the translation)that they ever agreed with the WT's NWT of the Hellenic Scriptures?

    Since I'm Greek and I feel so blessed because I can read the Original text of the Bible in my language, I was always asking how do those "old fools in Brooklyn managed to abuse the meaning of the Original Hellenic text and turn it in to something monsterous...

    The Original Hellenic text says: Εν αρχ? ειν ο Λ?γος. Και ο Λ?γος ε?ν παρα το Θε?. Και Θε?ς εστ?ν ο Λ?γος.Translated bellow with the exact words:

    Αt the beggining was the Word. And the Word was with God. And God is the Word

  • JustHuman14

    ROCKY...there are no Apocrypha for the Orthodox Church...they are defterocanonical Books(second in the Biblical Cannon)since there are more 10 Books in the Old testement. Books that Jesus, Paul, Peter refered to, but the WT never even bothered to see that

    Justhuman14 formely known justhuman

  • rocky

    Thanx JustHuman14 for info.

    I hope you have the wtlibr. 2008 so you can find yourself a lot info about it (if you do not have it look at the next link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/169948/2/2008-WT-Library-Question-1st-JWN-posting-too if you need help about it mail me to [email protected]) ... like the next here below..



    THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the NewWorldTranslation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, andtheWordwasagod.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (ANewTranslationoftheBible, by James Moffatt; TheNewEnglishBible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—TheHolyBible—NewInternationalVersion;TheJerusalem


    Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the NewWorldTranslation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.

    The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, TheAnchorBibleDictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

    The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

    Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.




    (For fully formatted text, see publication)



    In the beginning existed the Word

    and the Word existed with

    the God and a god was

    the Word



    Reproduced by Permission of the Chester Beatty Library

Share this