Jesus is the 'fine' shepherd or is he the 'Good' Shepherd

by Anony Mous 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    Read John 10:11, 14 in the WTBTS bible. Then read it in just about any other Bible you can find.

    I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep.

    vs.

    I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

    Does it really matter? They are nearly synonymous. But (one big but) - the fine shepherd would be slightly less of a shepherd than the Good Shepherd (God). Also, the "no-one is Good but God" from Mark 10:17-21 would support a non-trinitarian viewpoint better if you can't link together the two scriptures as easily. Anyone have any ideas how to discuss this with JW's?

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Yes. Look up the verses in the WT's own kingdom interlinear Greek translation. If you see the verse says "good" and the WT changed it to "fine", ask the jw why did they change the word? then explain how the change affects the meaning of what is being said. Use the "no one is good but God", which is obviously why the WT made the change.

    The kingdom interlinear helped me to see that the WT changed numerous verses in the NT to hide the divinity of Christ.

    Hope this helps, Lilly

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Mouse,

    If you don't have the Greek interlinear, you can download it here;

    http://www.soundwitness.org/jw/kit_download.htm

  • snowbird
    snowbird

    The koine Greek word for good is kalos.

    The New Testament was written in koine Greek.

    This is what the People's New Testament Commentary says about John 10:11.

    10:11 I am the good shepherd. This title, applied to Jehovah in Ps 23:1-6 Eze 34:12, Christ here applies to himself. The mark of the good shepherd is that he giveth his life for his sheep. In that unsettled country the shepherd had often to defend his flock.

    Couldn't let their followers know that, could they?

    Deceivers!

    Syl

  • snowbird
  • AGuest
    AGuest

    May you all have peace! As set out in the Bible, the Greek word used by Christ in reference to himself (kalos) is not the same Greek word he used in reference to the Father (agathos). In some instances, both words are used in the same verse... and both mean "good." A review of both of these words, however, suggest that whatever scribe first copied them confused them (perhaps thought them interchangeable, as is the case with many English words), which isn't unusual.

    Even so, the word kalos has many definitions/transliterations (which, unfortunately, often leaves it to the scribe, both ancient and modern, to choose)... and so while far be it from me to support something from the WTBTS, they're not really in error by using the term "fine" as opposed to "good". I mean, given the definition... or should I say, definitionS... of the word, kalos.

    One should take care, however, in being... ummmmm... rigid... with regard to words used in the Bible... and its many versions. Many have been changed, inserted, mistranslated, mistransliterated, tampered with... and written in a manner so as to make them easily confused with like-appearing words. How can one know what WAS meant/true?

    Those of you who should already know, so I won't bore you dear folks with the answer.

    Again, peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

  • possible-san
    possible-san

    Anony Mous.

    Anyone have any ideas how to discuss this with JW's?

    I think that this topic is well known among active JWs, IMO.
    But although many average/ordinary JWs (people who are not interested in the original language) may not know.

    However, in their publications, it is written like this.

    *** it-1 p. 986 Goodness ***
    A Related Term.
    Similar to the Greek word for good (agathos′) is another word, kalos′. The latter denotes that which is intrinsically good, beautiful, well adapted to its circumstances or ends (as fine ground, or soil; Mt 13:8, 23), and that which is of fine quality, including that which is ethically good, right, or honorable (as God’s name; Jas 2:7). It is closely related in meaning to good, but may be distinguished by being translatedfine,” “right,” “honest,” or “well.”—Mt 3:10; Jas 4:17; Heb 13:18; Ro 14:21.

    *** w82 3/15 p. 27 Other “New World Translation” Features ***
    Additionally, the New World Translation distinguishes between the adjective kalos, which means fine, excellent, superb, choice, and agathos, which chiefly means that which is morally good. So, at John 10:2-16, Jesus did not speak of himself as merely a good shepherd, but as a fine, excellent, superb shepherd.

    possible

  • possible-san
    possible-san

    In this case, I feel that there is an advantage in the JW side.

    (The reason which has this comment of mine here is that merely I was not able to edit within 30 minutes.)

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    people who are not interested in the original language. IMHO that is most JW's.

    However coming back to your point, if kalos (fine, superb) is better than agathos (merely good), why does Jesus assign God the label 'Good' (agathos) but refers to himself not as the merely good shepherd but as the better 'Good' or 'Fine' (kalos) shepherd? This would appear to make Jesus a better 'God' than the Hebrew God or at least equal to him if we accept (as JW's do) that the Bible they have is the closest to the original text and a superior translation.

    I'm investigating the divinity of Jesus here, an issue I'm struggling with as I'm investigating JW doctrine and other religions.

  • shepherd
    shepherd

    I thought he was a carpenter......as for it being a metaphor and futher defined by 'good' or 'fine', since in that verse he was referring to himself he could call himself anything he liked and I doubt he would have been so pedantic as to worry too much over the exact word that would be used later in English (in the original Greek it is not wrong to use fine or good - neither is an abuse of the meaning of the word).

    Finally, the proverb is silly really, since a dead shepherd cannot protect his flock in the future, so by 'surrendering' his soul on their behalf has then left them open to any kind of danger afterwards, if you think about it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit