by Wonderment 59 Replies latest watchtower bible
If Colossians is a reference to god creating an angel that intern created the world , you would think the story of the creation of Jesus would be found in the old testament.
Kind one of the missing links of Jehovah witness theology.
What was Paul thinking when he wrote that ? What else has Paul written on the subject ? Calling Jesus the viable image of the invisible god? or “ all the deity rested in bodily form “
jw-verite: The problem with adding "other" in Colossians is that it contradicts all other scriptures saying that ALL things where created by Jesus. So Jesus could not create himself could he? Cf. John 1:2; 1:10; 1 Co 8:6; Heb 1:2 In all these verses there is no "other". If everything was created by Jesus then Jesus was not created. As simple as that...
Newman & Nida, two scholars (Trinitarians) who worked closely with the American Bible Society, observe:
“The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation … Similar expressions are found in Paul's writings and in the Letter to the Hebrews … The Greek text indicates clearly that the Word was the instrument or agency employed by God in the creation.” (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman & Nida, p. 10.)
Jesus serving the role of "mediatorship" in the process of creation is not biblically depicted as offensive. (1 Tim. 2.5, Christ: "one mediator between God and men") On the contrary, Scripture states that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation"; "the beginning of the creation of God." (Col. 1.15; Rev.3.14) Hence, "all" living creatures (excluding God) in the universe are commanded to "bow down" before Christ. (1 Cor. 15.27; Hebrews 1.6) These Scriptures rather than contradicting the explained view in the article, they support it. If Jesus as "mediator" is someone other than "God and men," why would "God" then not be "the Source of creation" instead of Jesus? The Scriptures do make a difference between God and Christ: "Christ is seated at the right hand of God." (Col. 3.1) Why is "God" always, and not Christ, at the center of it all?
jw-verite: In all these verses there is no "other". If everything was created by Jesus then Jesus was not created. As simple as that...
This statement could suggest that God is "powerless" to employ a dear one close to him in the process of creation, if he so wishes. Isn't he almighty? God can imbue anyone he wishes with lofty powers. As noted in the article, the "everything" does not require biblically speaking, that Jesus himself was excluded from being created. Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God." Not the ""beginner." (Rev. 3.14) Christ is ‘of creation.’ Even Jesus said that ‘God created the first human pair.’ (Matt. 19.4) He could say that because he acknowledged "God" is the source of it all. In fact, Jesus own existence was due to God. In John 6.57, he states: "I live because of the Father." An "eternal" creator would never issue those words. Would he?
Isn't there some controversy around Jason BeDuhn & the NWT.
For a start I believe his Phd is in 'comparative religon'- ie he has no expertise in Biblical greek or indeed any of the bible languages, correct me if I'm wrong please?
My personal issue with the insertion of the word "other" is simply that it is not in the Greek, and that anyone (not just the NWT translation committee) who arbitrarily inserts words, whether to support their own bias (whether right or wrong,) or to clarify a thought, is wrong to do so. To me, this is not a trinity issue. It's a translation issue. For an organization who has claimed for years that it has the MOST ACCURATE translation, there is simply no excuse for this. An accurate translation is one that translates the words into another language without losing thought, but also without adding things that aren't there.
The addition of the word "other" in Col 1:16 is unnecessary, too, as the previous verse calls Christ "the firstborn of all creation" which is a correct translation from the Greek. As a firstborn, Christ would have had to have been created himself. Thus, the word "other" is an unnecessary addition in verse 16 and really does serve to show a bias.
For the record, I am not a trinitarian. I DO believe that Christ was created, and I DO believe that Christ was used to create everything else. I DO NOT believe that Christ and God are one and the same. I DO believe that God has elevated his son to a position equal to his own and has given his son ALL authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) similar to how Pharaoh gave Joseph authority over all things in Egypt (Gen 41:39-44) and I DO believe that Christ is of a divine nature, worthy of the same honor and service I would bestow to God himself. (John 5:22,23; Psalm 2:12; Dan 7:13,14)
For a start I believe his Phd is in 'comparative religon'- ie he has no expertise in Biblical greek or indeed any of the bible languages, correct me if I'm wrong please?
If there is any controversy around BeDuhn & the NWT, it must have originated by someone whose sole aim is to convince people that the NWT is utter crap. Most scholars defending a cause rarely specialize in the biblical languages per se. Most scholars hold a Ph.D in Theology, Literature, New Testament Interpretation, or Philosophy, to name some. Knowledge of Greek is necessary to obtain a Ph.D. For instance, Richard A. Young, the author of the Intermediate New Testament Greek - A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach, holds a B.S. from Arizona State University and a Ph.D from Bob Jones University. The jacket of the book does not explicit his Ph.D training, perhaps one in NT Interpretation. Another scholar, James Allen Hewett, the author of New Testament Greek, is a pastor with a strong background in language education. The book's cover does not state the source of his training for his Ph.D, but another source says he is Associate Professor of Theology. He has taught Greek in various universities.
BeDuhn's holds a B.A. degree in Religious Studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religious from Indiana University. Some training in Greek is required to obtain these degrees.
BeDuhn may not have the main expertise in biblical Greek that others profess, nevertheless, his book shows he is intelligent enough to deal with translation issues. It is preposterous to suggest, as some have, that BeDuhn is not capable to make a fair assessment of various Bible versions in his book, just because he, for the most part, spoke well of the NWT.
leaving-quietly: The addition of the word "other" in Col 1:16 is unnecessary, too, as the previous verse calls Christ "the firstborn of all creation" which is a correct translation from the Greek. As a firstborn, Christ would have had to have been created himself. Thus, the word "other" is an unnecessary addition in verse 16 and really does serve to show a bias.
It may seem that way, but when all things are considered, there is a benefit to it. As BeDuhn stated: “‘Other’ is implied in ‘all’ and the NW simply makes what is implicit explicit. You can argue whether it is necessary or not to do this. But I think the objections that have been raised to it show that it is, in fact, necessary, because those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase ‘firstborn of creation.’ If adding ‘other’ prevents this misreading of the Biblical text, then it is useful to have it there.” (p. 85)
So, though it might be clear to you and me that Jesus as ‘firstborn
of creation’ was created, the majority of Christendom do not see it that way. They argue against it.
"If adding ‘other’
prevents this misreading of the Biblical text, then it is useful to
have it there.”
Would you believe if I tell you that various modern Greek Bibles do insert the word "állos" (the Greek word for "other") in various contexts. Why would they do so if is totally unwarranted? Answer:
“ἄλλος
[állos in the Greek text]
is
sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” (Greek Grammar, Blass,
Debrunner and Funk, Ibid,
p. 160.)
Would you believe if I tell you that various modern Greek Bibles do insert the word "állos" (the Greek word for "other") in various contexts. Why would they do so if is totally unwarranted? Answer:
“ἄλλος
[állos in the Greek text]
is
sometimes omitted where we would add ‘other.’” (Greek Grammar, Blass,
Debrunner and Funk, Ibid,
p. 160.)
The excuse of "making the implicit explicit" doesn't fly with me. Since we weren't there when it was written, there is no way we could possibly know that it was implied verses intentionally left out. Just because some authors say it was left out does not mean a thing to me. What really counts is: what did the original Greek say? If the original Greek did not say it, there is no justification to add it. It is NOT the job of the translator to make the implied something explicit. It IS the job of the translator to translate words. If the word was not there to begin with, then the translator is taking liberties he ought not. In this case, állos does not exist in the originals as far as I can tell.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B51C001.htm#V16
Again, my only issue is with taking translational liberties. Nothing more. I happen to agree with the NWT, but I don't think the translation committee should have put it in there.
leaving-quietly: What really counts is: what did the original Greek say? If the original Greek did not say it, there is no justification to add it. It is NOT the job of the translator to make the implied something explicit. It IS the job of the translator to translate words. If the word was not there to begin with, then the translator is taking liberties he ought not.
Have you ever tried translating from one language to another? I ask, because I get the impression that the process of translation is foreign to you.
The translation process does involve translating thoughts, not only words. In one language you may say something one way, but when you strive to transfer the statement to another language, you may end up with different words altogether, unless you are satisfied with a wooden senseless rendering. One example -- 1 John 5.19 says in the original: "and the world whole in the wicked is lying." The Kingdom Interlinear Translation adds (one) to that like this: "and the world whole in the wicked (one) is lying." The "(one)" is not explicit but is implied. The NWT refines that literal reading for modern readers this way: "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Can you blame the translators for that? Not if you seek to make sense from obscure expressions in the original. Back when those writings were made, the projected audience of the writer did not need the extra information. Today we do. If you look that scripture up in the link you mentioned, you will find that other translators have added similar words to capably connect to the modern reader of the intention of the original author. Of course, there are risks in translation work.
Providing a link to Col 1.16 to show that other translators do not add "other" to "all things" does not argue with what I have stated. Sure, those translators chose not to to add "other" in that place, because they are basically "trinitarian" versions. However, they do not hesitate to add it in other places where convenient.
1 John 5.19 says in the original: "and the world whole in the wicked is lying." The Kingdom Interlinear Translation adds (one) to that like this: "and the world whole in the wicked (one) is lying." The "(one)" is not explicit but is implied. The NWT refines that literal reading for modern readers this way: "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Can you blame the translators for that?
I have to disagree with you here. In fact this is good example of translators reading their own pre conceived ideas into the text. It may seem 'obvious'to us that the authors are trying to convey dangers that contempories had no conception of, and Satan is the classic example of this.
There is no mention of satan in the hebrew bible until Job, here only the title ha-satan is used, 'the adversary', a noun description of a verb, it's a job title bestowed on a being rarther than the name of one.
This is what essentially is conveyed in the OT regarding Satan, part of the heavenly host - a fellow olympian of Yahweh looking down with scorn on the puny cares of man.Some obedient humans and angels are also called satan /adverary such as David 1 Samuel 24.
The new testement takes it's cue from secondtemple religious dualism in Babylon and early Zoroastrainism. The development of Satan as a "deceiver" has parallels with the evil spirit in Zoroastrianism, known as the Lie, who directs forces of darkness.
This in wikipaedia:
In Judaism, Satan is a term used since its earliest biblical contexts to refer to a human opponent.[26] Occasionally, the term has been used to suggest evil influence opposing human beings, as in the Jewish exegesis of the Yetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5). Micaiah's "lying spirit" in 1 Kings 22:22 is sometimes related. Thus, Satan is personified as a character in three different places of the Tenakh, serving as an accuser (Zechariah 3:1–2), a seducer (1 Chronicles 21:1), or as a heavenly persecutor who is "among the sons of God" (Job 2:1). In any case, Satan is always subordinate to the power of God, having a role in the divine plan. Satan is rarely mentioned in Tannaiticliterature, but is found in Babylonianaggadah.[20]
In medieval Judaism, the Rabbis rejected these Enochic literary works into the Biblical canon, making every attempt to root them out.[19] Traditionalists and philosophers in medieval Judaism adhered to rational theology, rejecting any belief in rebel or fallen angels, and viewing evil as abstract.[27] TheYetzer hara ("evil inclination" Genesis 6:5) is a more common motif for evil in rabbinical texts. Rabbinical scholarship on the Book of Job generally follows the Talmud and Maimonides as identifying the "Adversary" in the prologue of Job as a metaphor.[2]
To put it in a nutshell ,Jehovah has failed miserably in not being able to preserve accurately his own words that have come down to us through the ages in the form of the Bible.
He does not sound like an almighty God to me.
smiddy
