A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,696
3,059
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Greek scholars who translated the NT through history with a god at John 1:1 knows much more than her about the Greek language.
In the Greek Lexicons at John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4= the only 2 spots where the true God is called Ton Theon, and the other two are called Theon-Why? There can only be 1 reason-God( Ton Theon) and god (Theon)--trinity translations have small g god for Theon at 2 Cor 4:4, translating is the same at John 1:1. When in the same paragraph that 2 are called God or god, the true God is called Ton Theon.
What Greek scholars? Every interlinear I've looked at does not have "a" god. Except for the JW interlinear so far.
Yes, what does she know--native of Greece, speaks Greek? She couldn't possibly know as much as an upstate NY JW.

Here is something I found from a site entitled "New Testament Greek"
The Apparent Difference in Spelling
First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.
The Lack of a Greek Definite Article
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.


 
  • Like
Reactions: marks

Runningman

Active Member
Dec 3, 2023
190
71
28
38
Southeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You do realize this makes no sense.... But if true ...
clap.gif
... yippee.... Proof.... God does have 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head, just like we do.

The Peshitta.....
read it carefully. I had to cut it due to size... read the rest at Colossians 1 Peshitta Holy Bible Translated


Colossians 1


Peshitta Holy Bible TranslatedPar ▾
15He who is the image of The Unseen God and is The Firstborn of all creation.

16By him was everything created which is in Heaven and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Rulers; everything has been created by his hand and in him.

(NOTE: That is not talking about the Father.... Read 15 and 16 again)

17And he is The One who is before all, and all things exist by him.

(NOTE: That also is not talking about the Father.... Read 17 again)

18And he is The Head of the body which is the church, for he is The Head and The Firstborn from among the dead, that he would be Preeminent in everything,

(NOTE: That also is not talking about the Father, it is about Jesus, the first born from among the dead.... Read 18again)

19For in him All Fullness is pleased to dwell,

20And to reconcile all things by him to Itself, and by him It made peace by the blood of his crucifixion, whether of things that are in Earth or that are in Heaven.


NOW... once again John 1 from the Peshitta WHICH I HAVE CUT BECAUSE OF SIZE BUT YOU CAN READ IT YOURSELF IN FULL AT John 1 Peshitta Holy Bible Translated OR John 1 - Peshitta Aramaic New Testament NT John Etheridge 1849 James Murdock 1852 Online Parallel Bible Study

Especially see vs 18. This was the other well known language that Jesus spoke.
There is an argument to be made that the "By him was everything created which is in Heaven and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen..." doesn't refer to the previously mentioned person, meaning Jesus isn't the actual Creator.

For example, some versions of Acts 4:10,11 refer to the man who was healed as the cornerstone even though the cornerstone is Jesus.

Acts 4​
10let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth—whom you crucified, whom God raised out from the dead—in Him this man stands before you sound. 11This is
‘the stone having been rejected by you, the builders,
which has become the head of the corner.’​

Same thing happens in Acts 7 where it's actually the king who dealt treacherously with their race, not Joseph.

Acts 7​
18until there arose another king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 19Having dealt treacherously with our race, he mistreated our fathers, making them abandon their infants so that they would not live.​
John 1


Peshitta Holy Bible TranslatedPar ▾
1In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

2This One himself was at the origin with God.

3Everything was in his hand, and without him not even one thing existed of the things that existed.

4In him was The Life and The Life is The Light of men.

5And The Light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

6There was a man sent from God; his name was Yohannan.

7He came for a witness, to testify about The Light, that everyone by him would believe.

8He was not The Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9For That One was The Light of Truth, which enlightens every person that comes into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world existed by his hand, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But those that received him, to them he gave authority to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name,

13Those who had not been born of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of a man, but of God.

14And The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of The Only Begotten of The Father, full of grace and truth.
Same issue in John 1 where John the Baptist came to bear witness of the Light. John the Baptist and Jesus must have been around the same age, which would make them both approximately 30 years old by the time John the Baptist was testifying of the true Light.

Most translations I have read translate verse 9 using the present tense of the true Light coming into the world: "The true Light who enlightens every man was coming into the world." The Peshitta version seems to give more leeway for the theology you're producing.

So if the true Light was coming into the world in the present tense when Jesus had already been alive for 30 years or so then that would mean Jesus isn't the true Light. If Jesus isn't the true light then Jesus isn't the one who created the world in verse 10.
 

Runningman

Active Member
Dec 3, 2023
190
71
28
38
Southeast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is an argument to be made that the "By him was everything created which is in Heaven and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen..." doesn't refer to the previously mentioned person, meaning Jesus isn't the actual Creator.

For example, some versions of Acts 4:10,11 refer to the man who was healed as the cornerstone even though the cornerstone is Jesus.

Acts 4​
10let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth—whom you crucified, whom God raised out from the dead—in Him this man stands before you sound. 11This is
‘the stone having been rejected by you, the builders,
which has become the head of the corner.’​

Same thing happens in Acts 7 where it's actually the king who dealt treacherously with their race, not Joseph.

Acts 7​
18until there arose another king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 19Having dealt treacherously with our race, he mistreated our fathers, making them abandon their infants so that they would not live.​

Same issue in John 1 where John the Baptist came to bear witness of the Light. John the Baptist and Jesus must have been around the same age, which would make them both approximately 30 years old by the time John the Baptist was testifying of the true Light.

Most translations I have read translate verse 9 using the present tense of the true Light coming into the world: "The true Light who enlightens every man was coming into the world." The Peshitta version seems to give more leeway for the theology you're producing.

So if the true Light was coming into the world in the present tense when Jesus had already been alive for 30 years or so then that would mean Jesus isn't the true Light. If Jesus isn't the true light then Jesus isn't the one who created the world in verse 10.
To clarify what my point was here, it's that sometimes the last pronoun doesn't refer back to the closest noun in the Bible (after it's translated into English.)
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,304
560
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yea, that’s inaccurate. The Bible describes Jesus as a container where the Spirit of God dwells. Jesus emptied himself of who not what. In other words, Jesus emptied himself of God dwelling in him.

The attributes of God is what God has but makes up who he is. What Jesus emptied himself of was God dwelling in him not a possession of God that may be borrowed like a belt. And this is further proof against the commonly held doctrine.
It is helpful to look at Phil. 2:6-7 with some care. Looking at all the renditions of ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ I can find, I just don't see any textual basis for "in the form of God" (to use the NWT translation) meaning "God dwelling in him." It's more than that.

The ESV Study Bible footnotes Phil. 2:6 's "form" of God by saying the word “means the true and exact nature of something, possessing all the characteristics and qualities of something.” That's rather different from just God dwelling in someone.

The NIV renders Phil 2:6 as "Who, being in very nature God." That's far different from just God dwelling in someone.

The NLT renders Phil 2:6 as "Though he was God." That's as different as can be from just God dwelling in someone.

Might you point us to a translation of Phil. 2:6 at least close to "Who, having God dwelling within him"?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,578
5,116
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Might you point us to a translation of Phil. 2:6 at least close to "Who, having God dwelling within him"?
Try the VOICE with a reference to a vessel. I used the word container. The REV is good also.

5Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, though being in the appearance of God,c did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at,7but instead he emptied himself by taking the appearance of a servant, becoming like the rest of humankind. And being found as an ordinary human.

Imagine that, Jesus an ordinary human, like the rest of mankind? Who could have thought it? Given that God is spirit and cannot be perceived physically, just what do you suppose it means to have the appearance of God? Just how can one empty oneself if you are not container-like? Just what do you suppose Jesus in heaven was filled with that he emptied himself of?
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,304
560
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Try the VOICE with a reference to a vessel. I used the word container. The REV is good also.

5Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, though being in the appearance of God,c did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at,7but instead he emptied himself by taking the appearance of a servant, becoming like the rest of humankind. And being found as an ordinary human.
OK, I'll bite: How is this translation even remotely akin to "Who, having God dwelling within him, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at"????
Given that God is spirit and cannot be perceived physically, just what do you suppose it means to have the appearance of God?
I suppose it means to have the spirit of God.

Just how can one empty oneself if you are not container-like? Just what do you suppose Jesus in heaven was filled with that he emptied himself of?
Your Greek is failing you. ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν has the sense of putting aside, not draining a container.
 
Last edited:

Keiw

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2022
2,675
485
83
66
upstate NY
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What Greek scholars? Every interlinear I've looked at does not have "a" god. Except for the JW interlinear so far.
Yes, what does she know--native of Greece, speaks Greek? She couldn't possibly know as much as an upstate NY JW.

Here is something I found from a site entitled "New Testament Greek"
The Apparent Difference in Spelling
First of all, the same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word "God" in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor. 4:4). The apparent differences in spelling between the word ‘God’ in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ (‘theos’) and in other places, (even in the previous phrase, ‘and the Word was with God’ (‘theon’)) is due to inflection in the Greek language. Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms (cases & number) in which it can appear. (See my page on ‘Inflection’ and ‘Cases’ on the Web site). In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case (indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject). But it is the same word for ‘God’, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because ‘theos’ is a different word than ‘theon’, but is a different form of the identical word.
The Lack of a Greek Definite Article
Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.

Abner kneeland-1822 a Greek scholar translated from the Greek lexicons-He compared Greek to English side by side in his translation to prove to the world a god was correct. He was unbias. 19 other translations minimum had a god at John 1:1, 3 had was divine,( Moffat, Goodspeed, Schoenfield) 1 had was godlike. All rejected by trinity religions so were never used and all but disappeared for the most part.
You listen to trinity renditions of what the Greek says at John 1:1.
The recorded undeniable facts of true God worship history by Israel and the recorded fact that no trinity was ever known or served by a true follower prior to Catholicism adding the holy spirit to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople. No trinity was served by a true follower after that point either-Why? Because there is no trinity. The Abrahamic God= a single being God= YHVH(Jehovah)
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,578
5,116
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I just don't see any textual basis for "in the form of God" (to use the NWT translation) meaning "God dwelling in him."

If only it was written for you to see in black and white available in your native tongue for 4 centuries.


For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Col 2:9

 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,304
560
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
no trinity was ever known or served by a true follower prior to Catholicism adding the holy spirit to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople
I have to disagree with you here.

Hilary of Poitiers' De Trinitate was written a few decades earlier, in which the Holy Spirit was definitely portrayed as part of the Godhead. A fascinating read, if you have the time. He (and those he persuaded, largely in the West) was a true follower who both knew and served the Trinity prior to 381 CE. His influence on the Council of Constantinople should not be underestimated.

Even earlier, the Athanasian Creed affirms the co-eternal nature of all three members of the Trinity. It was quite influential, and also had an impact on the Council of Constantinople. It commanded the allegiance of quite a few true followers well prior to 381 CE.

What was declared at Constantinople was the outgrowth of consensus on the Trinity developing for a generation prior to 381 CE. Did it become official doctrine at the Council? Yes. Were there no true followers subscribing to it until then? Far from it.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,578
5,116
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OK. But that doesn't affect the proper meaning of Phil. 2:6-7.
You just like to go in circles.
5Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, though being in the appearance of God,c did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at,7but instead he emptied himself by taking the appearance of a servant, becoming like the rest of humankind. And being found as an ordinary human.
Your claim of ‘putting aside’ is contrary to ‘emptied himself’ of the translation.

I know you want to assert your knowledge of Greek is superior to the English translations available AND presented.

You don’t have eyes to see.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,304
560
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You just like to go in circles.

Your claim of ‘putting aside’ is contrary to ‘emptied himself’ of the translation.

I know you want to assert your knowledge of Greek is superior to the English translations available AND presented.

You don’t have eyes to see.
I guess blindness is among my many afflictions.
 

Keiw

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2022
2,675
485
83
66
upstate NY
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have to disagree with you here.

Hilary of Poitiers' De Trinitate was written a few decades earlier, in which the Holy Spirit was definitely portrayed as part of the Godhead. A fascinating read, if you have the time. He (and those he persuaded, largely in the West) was a true follower who both knew and served the Trinity prior to 381 CE. His influence on the Council of Constantinople should not be underestimated.

Even earlier, the Athanasian Creed affirms the co-eternal nature of all three members of the Trinity. It was quite influential, and also had an impact on the Council of Constantinople. It commanded the allegiance of quite a few true followers well prior to 381 CE.

What was declared at Constantinople was the outgrowth of consensus on the Trinity developing for a generation prior to 381 CE. Did it become official doctrine at the Council? Yes. Were there no true followers subscribing to it until then? Far from it.
You can disagree all you want, Its recorded history the holy spirit was added to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople. Its undeniable fact of reality. The Romans and Greeks had a multitude of Gods( all false) they refused to go to a religion with a single God. So a pagan false god worshipping king( Constantine) ran the council of Constantinople, Guess who had the final say on matters of what was Gods truth? They twisted it into oblivion at the councils.
 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,376
2,409
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You can disagree all you want, Its recorded history the holy spirit was added to a godhead in 381 ce at the council of Constantinople. Its undeniable fact of reality. The Romans and Greeks had a multitude of Gods( all false) they refused to go to a religion with a single God. So a pagan false god worshipping king( Constantine) ran the council of Constantinople, Guess who had the final say on matters of what was Gods truth? They twisted it into oblivion at the councils.
This is not understood by most who want to justify their foundational beliefs.....
By the time of Constantine the division in his empire was causing problems......so as the astute politician that he was, he found a way to ‘run with the hare, and hunt with the hounds’.....he took the favourite elements of both religions and fused them together......the pagans didn’t mind because they got to keep what they wanted under a new name, and the apostate Christians didn’t care as long as it sounded “Christian”.....even a very thin veneer was apparently OK with them.

Since the apostasy was foretold by Christ and his apostles, it seems strange that Christendom can’t see it or can pretend it never happened.....:no reply:......but then again, a collective “blindness” was also foretold. (2 Cor 4:3-4)
 

TheHC

Active Member
Jun 22, 2021
167
173
43
Columbus
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Since the apostasy was foretold by Christ and his apostles…
Yes.
And not a ‘thousand years down the road,’ either….
At Acts 20:29,30, the Apostle Paul said “after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”

In the Apostle John’s later years he wrote, “even now there have come to be many antichrists.’ — 1 John 2:18.

When under Constantine the Great’s ‘guidance’, and professed Christians began killing each other, directly disobeying Christ’s command to “love one another”…. there should have a “heads-up” right then, like “what are we doing?”!

It’s like you said, referencing 2 Corinthians 4: “blinded.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aunty Jane