How the New Word Translation Contradicts Itself: The Word was a god

[robert derrick]

Not responsive to the Scripture which Jesus God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah.

This is not equivalent to God making himself lord and messiah. God made somebody else, some other being these things. Isn’t that what Acts 2:36 says?

No. As you said, there's nothing further to discuss here, unless of course you come up with something new again.

I never rule you people out from digging deep into your back of tricks, to show some new imaginative way of teaching a falsely created christ-god.

I do appreciate however learning more about the pseudo-grammatical arguments.

We always can learn more certainly the truth of Scripture, by correcting the errors.

 

[robert derrick]

Current conclusions of the thread:

All translations of the Word as a god, contradict themselves, where they also show that any such god is a false god.

And case arguments from all CAPS Greek, shows that there can only be doctrinal reasons for making God in upper case, and as opposed to a lower case god. It is appropriate, so long as the doctrine is consistent.

And finally, the article argument is falsely made, since God is doctrinally translated God in one place without and article, and as a god in another place without an article.

A consistent doctrinal reading of John 1:1, where the Word is made a god, is:

In a beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

There was a beginning, in which men began to doctrinally make the Word a god, some time after John 1:1 was written as Scripture.

But, the true doctrine of Christ shows that In the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Wrangler]

Not responsive to the Scriture which Jesus God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah.

This is not equivalent to God making himself lord and messiah. God made somebody else, some other being these things. Isn’t that what Acts 2:36 says?
No ... show some new imaginative way of teaching a false ...

I do appreciate however learning more about the pseudo-grammatical arguments.

Oh, how delightful! Scripture that explicitly states that God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah - does not mean that but I am advocating something false. Please enlighten us without relying on pseudo-grammatical arguments yourself.

 

[robert derrick]

Oh, how delightful! Scripture that explicitly states that God made Jesus - both, lord and Messiah - does not mean that but I am advocating something false. Please enlighten us without relying on pseudo-grammatical arguments yourself.

As I said, something new. Thanks.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You are saying Jesus Christ was made both Lord and Christ, only after His death. This of course is how you speak of Him being resurrected and deified, like other hero cult gods of paganism.

And so, you are saying Jesus as a man in the flesh, was not Lord and Christ while on earth.

And so Jesus was not Christ while in the days of His flesh, which means He did not come as Lord and Christ in the flesh:

You are therefore saying, that Jesus did not come as Lord and Christ in the flesh, but was only made and defied as Lord and Christ afterward.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Thanks again.

 

[robert derrick]

Lord and Christ is deity, therefore deity came in the flesh, called Jesus Christ.

Only the spirit of antichrist says He was not Lord and Christ come in the flesh, but was only made and deified as such after the cross.

This therefore is also an attack on God offering Himself a sacrifice for sins, which means He was not the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, nor on the cross.

Antichrists attack Jesus as being only another created man on earth, and was not Lord and Christ come in the flesh, nor was He the Lamb of God on the cross, but just another falsely accused man dying unjustly.

All angels and men deified into gods is paganism 101.

JW pagans attack the Word, the Son, and the Lamb of God.

 

[Wrangler]

You are saying Jesus Christ was made both Lord and Christ, only after His death.

No. I think you know that is not what I nor Scripture is saying.

 

[tigger 2]

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

No articles for God, even as in John 1:1.

Only in John 1:1, do the pagan god and christ makers insist on the non-article be a god.

Also, in the beginning also has no article, so that none is needed to speak of the beginning, nor the God.

Here is pagan man's translation for John 1:1, where they insist the nonarticle be a god:

In a beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

Which is what happened when pagan men first made the word a god, and not God.

There was a beginning, when the word was made a god by men, some time after John 1:1 was written in Scripture.

And that god is a man-made pagan god and false christ, that is no god nor Christ Jesus at all.

...............................................................................
Still not giving proper citations. Your first quote from KJV is 1 Cor. 1:21 and the Greek text uses three different cases for God (Genitive: theou; Accusative: theon; and Nominative: theos), and they all have the article! As has been pointed out already, theos is the only one to be used for a study of John 1:1c and it would have to be an anarthrous predicate noun fond before its verb. None of these are predicate nouns.

Your second quotation is from KJV, Gal. 4:8 as you should have told us. The use of "God" there is in the accusative case (theon) and, unlike the nominative case (theos) does not always use the article to show that "God" or "god" is being referred to.

In addition, Paul's usage differs from John's. To discuss the grammar and usage of a clause in John, we can't use an example from Paul's writing with any certainty. If you would actually read my studies with care you would know all the above and not make such foolish errors.

You would also already know that although John uses many other examples parallel to John 1:1c ("a man," "a prophet," "a manslayer," etc.) there is not another parallel usage in the NT that uses the anarthrous theos. But there is a proper parallel using the anarthrous theos found in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. See Judges 6:31 or, better yet, 3 Kings 18:27 (1 Kings 18:27 in the Hebrew OT).

I hope you will gain some honest knowledge of NT Greek and John 1:1c.

 

[tigger 2]

If you care enough to know, you will go back and read what I already told you, rather than just skip over it as usual.

Pot/Kettle/ Black

 

[robert derrick]

...............................................................................
Still not giving proper citations. Your first quote from KJV is 1 Cor. 1:21 and the Greek text uses three different cases for God (Genitive: theou; Accusative: theon; and Nominative: theos), and they all have the article! As has been pointed out already, theos is the only one to be used for a study of John 1:1c and it would have to be an anarthrous predicate noun fond before its verb. None of these are predicate nouns.

Your second quotation is from KJV, Gal. 4:8 as you should have told us. The use of "God" there is in the accusative case (theon) and, unlike the nominative case (theos) does not always use the article to show that "God" or "god" is being referred to.

In addition, Paul's usage differs from John's. To discuss the grammar and usage of a clause in John, we can't use an example from Paul's writing with any certainty. If you would actually read my studies with care you would know all the above and not make such foolish errors.

You would also already know that although John uses many other examples parallel to John 1:1c ("a man," "a prophet," "a manslayer," etc.) there is not another parallel usage in the NT that uses the anarthrous theos. But there is a proper parallel using the anarthrous theos found in the ancient OT Greek Septuagint. See Judges 6:31 or, better yet, 3 Kings 18:27 (1 Kings 18:27 in the Hebrew OT).

I hope you will gain some honest knowledge of NT Greek and John 1:1c.

Now you move from a false article argument, to an equally false case argument.

Intellectual playtime with Scripture is proven endless and useless once again.

All translations, that say the Word that was with God, was a god, condemn themselves for make unto themselves a god, that is not a god at all,

Can a man make gods for himself, When they are not really gods?

And they contradict Scripture, that says there was never any god with God.

See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me.

They also give lip service to the Word with capital letter.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

We know stubborn teachers of false gods, when we see them trying to argue over the unarguable, by trying to make endlessly foolish arguments over the letters of the words, rather than just read them as written.

 

[robert derrick]

Another problem with the NWT, is that it must translate certain Scriptures with confusion, so as to try and appear it does not contradict itself elsewhere.

See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me.

If someone wants to argue that the NWT of Jeremiah 16:39 is not saying there are no gods with me, as other translations say, (which would contradict the NWT of a god with God), then they find themselves teaching an even worse sort of mess:

If there are no gods that exist apart from God, but there are gods with God, then that would mean every god with God must be the Word with God: There must be many Words with God and so many Words of God.

According to the NWT, there aren't just many gods, that must be with God to be gods, but there are also many Words of God with God.

That means that anyone can make themselves a god with God, by making their own Word of God.

And that, my Christian friends, is exactly what Lucifer tried to do for himself, and then tempted first Adam and Eve to do like him, and still tempts all men to do the same today.

To become our own god with God, and to be our own Word to decide what is good and evil, true and false.

The NWT for JWs is the Word made for people that want to believe they are gods now, since they say there be many gods with God, and no gods apart from God. And so JW's are Words of God with God themselves.

 

[robert derrick]

They incited him to fury with foreign gods; They were offending him with detestable things. They were sacrificing to demons, not to God, To gods that they had not known,

New ones that came along recently, To gods that your forefathers did not know.

And so here we have JWs once again condemning their own NWT of John 1:1.

Who is a strange and newly made god, but this new god with God, called the word?

Is God saying they had left off serving the one true god, that was with Him in the beginning?

There is no god with God ever appearing in Scripture, until NWT of John 1:1 says so.

Which makes that god a demon and new one that has come, that the patriarchs knew not at all, and that is now being sacrificed to openly in the NWT.

You forgot the Rock who fathered you, And you did not remember the God who gave birth to you.

And the NWT also says their god and christ is not the Rock of old, nor now, because there is only one Rock that fathers God's people.

The devilish god being sacrificed to in the NWT, is a newly risen and strange god, that they say is with God, but is not God nor is the Rock of God.

 

[robert derrick]

You forgot the Rock who fathered you, And you did not remember the God who gave birth to you.

This shows why the Son can also be called the everlasting Father:

For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership* will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

The NWT shows that the Son shall be called the eternal Father, because He is the Rock that fathers God's people and sons.

JW's don't even believe their own NWT.

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name. And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.

(Aside from this pathetic rendering of one of the most beautiful Scriptures written) Since it is the Son who gives power to become sons of God, so that it is with His will and good pleasure to do so, then the Word and Son must be God, and not just a man, because no man is born of God by any man's will.

The sons of God fathered by the Rock called the eternal Father, are born of God by the will of the Son, from Whom they are given power to be called sons of God.

The power to become sons of God is given by the Son, which is from God the Word.

Once again, JW's reject the doctrine of their own NWT.

 

[tigger 2]

See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me. [cited by Robert Derrick as Jeremiah 16:39 in post #110 above]

….……………………

But Jeremiah 16:39 does not say what you say. Worse yet, there is no Jer. 16:39! Obviously, your quote is actually from Deut. 32:39!

Furthermore, you continue to deny that the scripture languages often have more than one meaning per word and it is context and the translator’s choice that determines the English translation in those cases.

Here are some trinitarian Bible translations:

See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god besides Me. I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. - KJ21.

See now that I alone am he; there is no God but me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from my power. - CSB.

Don't you understand? I am the only God; there are no others. I am the one who takes life and gives it again. I punished you with suffering. But now I will heal you, and nothing can stop me! - CEV.

See, I am the only God. There are no others. I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal, and no one can rescue you from my power. - GW.

See now that I alone am He; there is no God but Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal. No one can rescue anyone from My hand. - HCSB.

See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can save anyone from My hand. - NASB.

‘Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand. - NKJV.

See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god besides me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand. - NRSV.

 

[Wrangler]

This shows why the Son can also be called the everlasting Father:

No. It shows nothing of the kind since there is not one passage in all of Scripture - certainly none in all of the NT - that identifies Jesus as any kind of father.

 

[robert derrick]

No. It shows nothing of the kind since there is not one passage in all of Scripture - certainly none in all of the NT - that identifies Jesus as any kind of father.

Reread the Scripture given and try again.

Jesus Christ is my Rock, that fathers me with God.

 

[Wrangler]

Reread the Scripture given and try again.

Jesus Christ is my Rock, that fathers me with God.

I know the Scripture. Jesus may be your rock and my rock but THE rock is Jesus’ God.

 

[robert derrick]

I know the Scripture. Jesus may be your rock and my rock but THE rock is Jesus’ God.

I have no rock nor god nor created christ.

You can have that one all you want.

My Rock is Jesus Christ.

Until you have something new for me to consider, then we're finished for now.

 

[Wrangler]

I have no rock nor god nor created christ

Sons are created. Acts 2:36 God made Jesus (both lord and Messiah).

 

[robert derrick]

Acts 2:36 God made Jesus (both lord and Messiah).

I went back to see if it was you I responded to on this, and I couldn't find it. Maybe it was on another thread.

In any case, I'll do so once for you here, just for fairness sake.

Just to make sure: since Peterisf speaking of the resurrected Lord and Christ, are you saying that Jesus was made Lord and Christ only with His resurrection, as in being deified to be Lord and Christ?

Are you saying He was not Lord and Christ before His death?

 

[Johann]

(kai the·osʹ en ho loʹgos)

Try as you want to twist the scriptures...there is no "a god" but "the [Definite Article] Logos/Memra

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. [Isa_9:6]
AMPC

Was with God (ἦν πὸς τὸν Θεὸν)
Anglo-Saxon vers., mid Gode. Wyc., at God. With (πρός) does not convey the full meaning, that there is no single English word which will give it better. The preposition πρός, which, with the accusative case, denotes motion towards, or direction, is also often used in the New Testament in the sense of with; and that not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion; implying the active notion of intercourse. Thus: “Are not his sisters here with us” (πρὸς ἡμᾶς), i.e., in social relations with us (Mar_6:3; Mat_13:56). “How long shall I be with you” (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Mar_9:16). “I sat daily with you” (Mat_26:55). “To be present with the Lord” (πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, 2Co_5:8). “Abide and winter with you” (1Co_16:6). “The eternal life which was with the Father” (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, 1Jn_1:2). Thus John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him.
And the Word was God (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος)
In the Greek order, and God was the Word, which is followed by Anglo-Saxon, Wyc., and Tynd. But θεὸς, God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word. Notice that Θεὸς is without the article, which could not have been omitted if he had meant to designate the word as God; because, in that event, Θεὸς would have been ambiguous; perhaps a God. Moreover, if he had said God was the Word, he would have contradicted his previous statement by which he had distinguished (hypostatically) God from the word, and λόγος (Logos) would, further, have signified only an attribute of God. The predicate is emphatically placed in the proposition before the subject, because of the progress of the thought; this being the third and highest statement respecting the Word - the climax of the two preceding propositions. The word God, used attributively, maintains the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person, and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. “There is something majestic in the way in which the description of the Logos, in the three brief but great propositions of Joh_1:1, is unfolded with increasing fullness” (Meyer).
Vincent

J.