God's Personal Name & New World Translation

[farouk]

Pretty bad translation of what was actually said sir, Jesus is not equal to Jehovah. In fact the actual verse was explaining that Jesus didn't even think that was something to shoot for, like satan did.

Totally false.

John 1: 'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ... And 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'.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Totally false.

John 1: 'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ... And 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'.

Why does your version of the Bible translate theos/theon as a god in Acts 28:6 instead of God as it did in Jn 1:1 sir? Do you suppose they did it to support a doctrinal belief? Why does God have a God, and why did he lie at Mk 10:40 and 13:32? No sir, your translation altered the passage. The Word was actually with his God in the beginning of creation, in fact, he was the beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14

 

[Josho]

But scholars and Rabi’s have noted that the letters YHWH represent breathing sounds, or aspirated consonants. When pronounced without intervening vowels, it actually sounds like breathing.

YH (inhale): WH (exhale).

So a baby’s first cry, his first breath, speaks the name of God.

A deep sigh calls His name – or a groan or gasp that is too heavy for mere words.

Wow this is so cool just tried it and listened to my breathing.

 

[tigger 2]

Why does your version of the Bible translate theos/theon as a god in Acts 28:6 instead of God as it did in Jn 1:1 sir? Do you suppose they did it to support a doctrinal belief? Why does God have a God, and why did he lie at Mk 10:40 and 13:32? No sir, your translation altered the passage. The Word was actually with his God in the beginning of creation, in fact, he was the beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14

.........................................................
Examining the Trinity (Seven Lessons for understanding John's usage of NT Greek Grammar at John 1:1c)

 

[Robert Gwin]

.........................................................
Examining the Trinity (Seven Lessons for understanding John's usage of NT Greek Grammar at John 1:1c)

No need to research it Tigger, the Bible is very clear on who Jehovah and Jesus are.

 

[tigger 2]

No need to research it Tigger, the Bible is very clear on who Jehovah and Jesus are.

...........................................
Nearly every Bible translation mistranslates John 1:1c. Shouldn't this fact be revealed to all Bible readers?

 

[Robert Gwin]

...........................................
Nearly every Bible translation mistranslates John 1:1c. Shouldn't this fact be revealed to all Bible readers?

I think it actually is Tigger. We are living at the end of the last days, our understanding has became much brighter over time Pro 4:18; Dan 12:4 We live in the age of information, and most things can actually be Googled to receive an answer, not saying that answer will be correct, but most honest hearted persons know Jesus is not God, and that various translators deliberately rendered the verse that way to support the trinity doctrine, even though the same versions rendered it a god in Acts 28:6 not consistently translating words.

 

[tigger 2]

I haven't found a trinitarian yet who doesn't believe the trinitarian Bibles' rendering of John 1:1c is correct. There is no other use of theos (predicate nominative) in the NT which can be used as an example of the usage of John 1:1c (anarthrous P.N. before its verb).

That's why I used every other use by John of anarthrous predicate count nouns to prove he intended "a god."

There is a parallel use of an anarthrous theos at 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles). It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the be verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) “violation” of the misused “Colwell’s Rule”! - Cf. Judges 6:31.