@Jack Please ignore comments from JWs if you really want to know the truth and not their twisted version of it.
"The word was a god"?
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
-
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!
You are missing the point.
The new world translation is the bible used by the watch tower and tract bible society, known as Jehovahs witnesses.
It is the JW's who teach that Jesus is a god with a small g, because they do not believe he is the Son of God, but part of there panthion of gods.
Yes, I don't think i missed the point, I already knew that but thanks.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.....................................
Translators choose the text they wish to translate. Modern texts: Nestle ('Lord'); W&H ('Lord'); UBS (Christ); Older text: Received Text ('Christ). So those Bibles which use the Received Text or the UBS texts would have 'Christ' in 1 Cor. 10:9. Whereas those Bibles using Nestle or W&H texts would have "Lord' in their translations. This does not make either one certain.
Last edited:
ALL of the Greek texts have Christos in 1 Cor. 10:9. Since Jesus Christ is often referred to as "Lord" (Kyrios) by Paul, I could see an English translator rendering Christos as "Lord."
As it happens, Jehovah is likewise referred to as "Lord" in many translations of the OT. But my problem is with translating Christos as "Jehovah." Kyrios might be translated as "Jehovah," but translating Christos as "Jehovah" (like the NWT does) makes no sense. Unlike Kyrios, Christos is always a referent to the Son, never to the Father.
Use of the same word as a referent to two different people is not a license to make all of their monikers interchangeable. (Biden is sometimes called "Mr. President." Trump is sometimes called "Mr. President." Is that any reason to call Biden "Trump" or vice versa?)
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
I think you got it wrong, JW's believe in one God the father Jehovah and Christ as his only begotten son, they do not believe in a pantheon of Gods.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
God has many sons (Ps 82:6) but only one counts as His actual progeny.
• 1John 4:9 . . God sent forth His only-begotten son into the world that we
might gain life through him.
In a nutshell: the Greek word for "only-begotten" in that verse is monogenes
which identifies a child that has no biological siblings. Examples of only
begotten children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, and Heb
11:17.
Now, were God to reproduce, His progeny would be the very same kind of
life as Himself; and that has some serious ramifications.
The one true God is a divine being. Therefore; the one true God's progeny
would not only come to birth a divine being like Himself, but also a one true
God like Himself because that's how reproduction works, e.g. Gen 5:3.
However, according to Deut 6:4, the one true God is a singularity. So then,
in order to recognize His progeny as a one true God, we must concede that
God wears more than one hat, viz: Father and Son-- though each are divine
beings, and though each are a one true God --are a unity, i.e. the two, in
combination together, constitute the singularity spoken of by Deut 6:4
* If we can accept that males and females in combination together constitute
Adam (Gen 5:2) and in combination together constitute one flesh (Gen
2:24), then I should think we can accept that God and His son in
combination together constitute the one true God.
_
God has many sons (Ps 82:6) but only one counts as His actual progeny.
• 1John 4:9 . . God sent forth His only-begotten son into the world that we
might gain life through him.
In a nutshell: the Greek word for "only-begotten" in that verse is monogenes
which identifies a child that has no biological siblings. Examples of only
begotten children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, and Heb
11:17.
Now, were God to reproduce, His progeny would be the very same kind of
life as Himself; and that has some serious ramifications.
The one true God is a divine being. Therefore; the one true God's progeny
would not only come to birth a divine being like Himself, but also a one true
God like Himself because that's how reproduction works, e.g. Gen 5:3.
However, according to Deut 6:4, the one true God is a singularity. So then,
in order to recognize His progeny as a one true God, we must concede that
God wears more than one hat, viz: Father and Son-- though each are divine
beings, and though each are a one true God --are a unity, i.e. the two, in
combination together, constitute the singularity spoken of by Deut 6:4
* If we can accept that males and females in combination together constitute
Adam (Gen 5:2) and in combination together constitute one flesh (Gen
2:24), then I should think we can accept that God and His son in
combination together constitute the one true God.
_
I'm a Trinitarian. And, nevertheless, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
But I'm certainly not going to blame you. It is so hard for we humans NOT to anthropomorphize when talking about God. (After all, it's pretty much all we know! Our language devolves from our sense-experience.) We look at the world, see life and reproduction, and when trying to conceptualize the Son of God described in Scripture we think immediately that God can "reproduce" -- and, as is true of reproduction here on earth, we think immediately that His "progeny" shares in His substance or ousia (deity).
But when it comes time to square such "reproduction" and "progeny" with monotheistic notions that "God is One" (which is not quite the same thing as "there is one God" -- although both happen to be true), we run into a bit of difficulty. A human and his/her offspring, an animal and its offspring, a plant and its offspring are separate entitles -- and while sharing common DNA, side by side they are two, not one. At least, they are not One in the same sense that monotheists think of God. My son and I are not a "unity" in any sense that matters to understanding the Trinity, and the moment I analogize God's Son to my own human son in any respect, I'm in philosophical deep water.
The "one flesh" analogy for husband-and-wife couplets (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:4-6, Eph. 5:31, 1 Cor. 6:16, etc.) doesn't make that water any shallower. In fact, no biological analogy will ever work here -- and for the same reason. Human constructs are inappropriate in describing the divine.
God doesn't "reproduce" -- at least not in the anthropomorphic sense you mean. God doesn't have "progeny" -- at least not in the anthropomorphic sense you mean. We cannot import biological notions of "begotten" or "only begotten" to describe the pre-incarnate Son and expect even tolerable accuracy from the analogy. (We cannot escape the problem by adding "eternally begotten" either.) Words fail us here -- at least, words with biological overlays do. As the Latin apologist Tertullian bemoaned more than a century before Nicaea, “The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One) . . . They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods.” Little wonder!
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..................................................
As noted above, The Nestle text and the Westcott and Hort text both use kurios at 1 Cor. 10:9. The NWT (and others) used the W&H text. So when they found this to be a reference to Numbers 21:5,6, they replaced kurios with YHWH.
Some Other Bibles which use "Lord" at 1 Cor. 10:9:
ASV; AT; Emphatic Diaglott; GW; GNT; ICB; ISV; JB; NAB; NASB; NEB; NIV; NJB; NLV; RSV; TLB; TLV; WE.
Last edited:
I'm so glad normal people don't have to be clever or knowledgeable about other languages to be a Christian. If they did there wouldn't be many. Jesus made it simple so why do some people make it so complicated. The bible in any of its many forms will teach us what we need to know through the Holy spirit giving us understanding. No degrees necessary. Bible college - not necessary. Just an open heart and a mind open to God.
The Nestle text -- officially, the Novum Testamentum Graece -- does not have kurios in 1 Cor. 10:9. It has christos. Read the Bible text :: academic-bible.com
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.......................................................
My fault. I have A Zondervan interlinear which uses "Nestle's New Testament" (21st edition). It uses kurios at 1 Cor. 10:9.
It also says about that Nestle text (which uses kurios), "The Nestle's Greek New Testament [21st edition] .... is based on a comparison of the texts edited by Tischendorf (1869-72), by Westcott and Hort (1881), and by Berhard Weiss (1894-1900). Where two of these editions agree, this reading is printed by Nestle."
The Griesbach text also uses kurios.
But the point is, concerning the NWT, that it has used the W&H text from the beginning (1950).
Last edited:
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
• Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and
he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son
FAQ: How was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son at the time of the Akeda
while Ishmael was still alive?
REPLY: At the time of the event recorded in the 22nd of Genesis, Ishmael was no
longer one of Abraham's legal sons. The reason being that paternal customs
back in that day allowed a man to disown any son of his born of a slave
women by emancipating her; which he did.
• Gen 21:14 . . So Abraham got up early the next morning, prepared food for
the journey, and strapped a container of water to Hagar's shoulders. He sent
her away with their son
The words "sent her away" are translated from the Hebrew word shalach
(shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as
for the emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then the customs of that day would've allowed her son Ishmael to retain his
legal status as Abraham's eldest son.
Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons in accord with the laws
of nature (Gen 25:9) but in legal matters relative to inheritance he became
no son at all.
NOTE: The paternal customs mentioned in this post are reputed to be those
of a so-called Code Of Hammurabi; but I don't know for sure whether that's
ever been proven true beyond a hint of sensible doubt.
_
• Heb 11:17 . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and
he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son
FAQ: How was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son at the time of the Akeda
while Ishmael was still alive?
REPLY: At the time of the event recorded in the 22nd of Genesis, Ishmael was no
longer one of Abraham's legal sons. The reason being that paternal customs
back in that day allowed a man to disown any son of his born of a slave
women by emancipating her; which he did.
• Gen 21:14 . . So Abraham got up early the next morning, prepared food for
the journey, and strapped a container of water to Hagar's shoulders. He sent
her away with their son
The words "sent her away" are translated from the Hebrew word shalach
(shaw-lakh') which is a versatile word that can be used of divorce as well as
for the emancipation of slaves. In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is
commonly assumed; no, she was set free; and it's very important to nail
that down in our thinking because if Abraham had merely banished Hagar,
then the customs of that day would've allowed her son Ishmael to retain his
legal status as Abraham's eldest son.
Ishmael retained his status as one of Abraham's sons in accord with the laws
of nature (Gen 25:9) but in legal matters relative to inheritance he became
no son at all.
NOTE: The paternal customs mentioned in this post are reputed to be those
of a so-called Code Of Hammurabi; but I don't know for sure whether that's
ever been proven true beyond a hint of sensible doubt.
_
It's interesting that the Nestle changes to Christos in later editions. Any thoughts as to why?
I don't know which (or how many) ancient manuscripts Wescott and Hort perused in deciding on kurios in verse 9, but it does seem clear that the earliest Greek manuscripts have Christos. P46 does. And even earlier, the manuscript sitting in front of Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.27.3) did.
It's easy to imagine some later scribes being uncomfortable with placing Christ in OT times and substituting kurios as a result (although 1 Cor. 10:4 suggests that Paul himself was not uncomfortable with the notion at all). That's the conclusion of Bruce Metzger, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd ed. p. 560): "The reading that best explains the origin of the others is Christon, attested by the oldest Greek manuscript (P46) as well as by a wide diversity of early patristic and versional witnesses (Irenaeus in Gaul, Ephraem in Edessa, Clement in Alexandria, Origen in Palestine, as well as by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Syriac, Sahidic and Bohairic). The difficulty of explaining how the ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have tempted Christ prompted some copyists to substitute either the ambiguous kurion or the unobjectionable theon. Paul’s reference to Christ here is analogous to that in ver. 4."
Anyway, the jump from W&H's "kurios" to NWT's "Jehovah" remains troubling to me.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Maybe God had nothing to do with the Bible at all. Scribes and Copyist probably created the whole thing…
The “imaginations” and “assumptions” are endless!
“Textual Criticism” is an atheist’s and non Christian’s dream come true! It provides the perfect weapons to assail Christianity and the Bible.
And Christians support this stuff…
Weird.
Since we don't have a single original manuscript of any gospel or letter in the NT, and the copies we do have vary in text, it is important to try to reconstruct what the writers actually said. In choosing from among the various versions rendered by various copyists, it strikes me that textual criticism is a valuable tool for accomplishing that necessary task.
To use the example at hand, I'd like to know whether Paul said kurios or whether he said chistos in 1 Cor. 10:9. Don't you? If so, how do you propose we figure this out without applying tools like textual criticism?
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
This was not as big an issue before Westcott and Hort conspired to throw subversive ideas against the Received Text. Their ideas are the foundation of all Bible criticism since their days.
In 1981 Metzger said:
“The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration.”
Christianity is infected with this cancer that has done harm to the faith.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
...........................................................
RedFan wrote (post 209): “Anyway, the jump from W&H's "kurios" to NWT's "Jehovah" remains troubling to me.”
….……………………
# 209 above: “As noted above, ... the Westcott and Hort text ... use kurios at 1 Cor. 10:9. The NWT (and others) used the W&H text. So, when they found this to be a reference to Numbers 21:5,6, they replaced kurios with YHWH.”
The NWT attempts to replace the name of God in the NT in the places where it is a quote or clear reference to that use in the Hebrew OT text. So, are you saying they are wrong about Numbers 21:5,6 [and verse 7] referring to the name of God (YHWH)?
As for Bruce Metzger’s comment, in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd ed. p. 560), it should be noted that the UBS committee gave their use of “Christ” in this scripture only a “C” rating. A “C” rating means that their decision regarding a word or words has “considerable degree of doubt”.
I'm not saying that at all. I absolutely agree that Numbers 21 is all about YHWH.
And 1 Cor. 10:9 is all about Christ. Paul is telling the Corinthians in Chapter 10 of Christ's presence in the OT. 1 Cor. 10:4 is the first instance. 1 Cor. 10:9 is the second.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
