NWT support of John 1:1. Punching holes in it

by LevelThePlayingField 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • LevelThePlayingField
    LevelThePlayingField

    I'm not sure if the last three references are of the same book. It seems like it by the title.

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    it`s been more than two thousand years since the last book of the Bible was written and their have been countless discussions /debates /arguments about what GOD meant here ,there ,and everywhere about this,that and the other and in the two thousand years since we haven`t heard a peep out of GOD.?

    To set the matter straight .!

    To me that proves such a being does not exist and if he in fact does exist ? then he`s a complete arse-hole for messing with peoples minds the way he has.

  • venus
    venus

    Hi Vanderhoven7

    I never knew this, and looked up the interlinear and found Thomas' statement as being literally: "ho theos mou" -- "the god of me"

    Very interesting point which flatly refutes JW reasoning which plays with article such as "a" and "the."

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    It’s also worth mentioning that although Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article, when the New Testament was translated into Sahidic, as early as the second century, the translators used the indefinite article to convey the meaning here. The early church father Origen also perceived a strong distinction between “God” with and “a god” without the article in this verse, referring to the Word as a “second god”. Catholic scholar John L McKenzie famously said that the verse, “should rigorously be translated ‘the Word was a divine being.’” There is a lot of support for a non-traditional rendering of John 1:1 along the lines of the NWT.

  • Wonderment
    Wonderment

    venus: "I never knew this, and looked up the interlinear and found Thomas' statement as being literally: "ho theos mou" -- "the god of me." Very interesting point which flatly refutes JW reasoning which plays with article such as "a" and "the."

    Not quite! The grammatical construction of John 20.28 and 1.1 are not equal. John 1.1c uses a simple anarthrous nominative form for theós, while John 20.28 combines an articular nominative in a genitive-vocative construct. There is also the matter of Semitic influence in the statement.

    C.F.D. Moule explains: "In John xx.28...it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous [without the article]...; the article before [theós] may, therefore, not be significant.... Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense...the use of the article with a virtual Vocative (cf. John xx.28 referred to above...) may also be due to Semitic idiom." (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 116-17. Cambridge University Press)

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7
    True In 1:1 and in.jn. 20:28 are different. In Jn 20Thomas is identifyong Jesus as The God.
  • Wonderment
    Wonderment

    Vanderhoven7: "True in [John] 1:1 and in jn. 20:28 are different. In Jn 20 Thomas is identifying Jesus as The God."

    If Thomas really acknowledged Jesus as "The God," should we not expect John the closest one to Jesus reach the same conclusion?

    John wrote instead: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [not "The God"], and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." (John 20.31) Jesus being superior to us in every way, including having greater knowledge about the Creator, confessed in prayer: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17.3)

    Now, if Jesus himself conceded that his Father was "the only true God," why would anyone prefer the bewildering exclamation of Thomas (which has been understood variously - q.v. C.F.D. Moule's quote above) over our Lord's direct and clear confession?

  • jhine
    jhine
    From Ben

    Lol
    Ask him to define a black hole!

    Jan
  • blownaway
    blownaway

    Personally I quit arguing these points long ago when I came to believe that the bible was nothing more than a goat herders book on the evolution of man. So for me it would be like arguing if there were two green eggs or one green egg with the ham in Dr Seuss.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    If Thomas really acknowledged Jesus as "The God," should we not expect John the closest one to Jesus reach the same conclusion?

    John wrote instead: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [not "The God"]

    "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17.3)

    Stranger then that John did not record Jesus denying Thomas's assertion...or try to explain it away as JWs do.

    CARM has some interesting apologetics on John 17:3

    1. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4).
      1. Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord.
    2. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10).
      1. Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light.
    3. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone,"(Mark 10:18).
      1. Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense.
    4. "I, even I, am the Lord [YHWH}; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11).
      1. We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior.
    5. "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who alone works wonders," (Psalm 72:18).
      1. Jesus performed many miracles. But if the Lord [YHWH] is the one who alone performs wonders, how then can it be that Jesus also?
    6. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, 'I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24).
      1. According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic you would have a problem.
      2. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Since God alone created all things, how could Jesus have done it? For more on this subject see the JW paper on Col. 1:16-17.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit