"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!
If God the Father is God and acording to the new world translation Jesus is a god, they believe in a oantheon of gods, even if it is just two gods.
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
dhh712
Well-Known Member
Jesus' very clear teaching is that Hell is a real place where there will be torment forever and ever. Some scholars prefer to twist his words and say that he actually meant something else; and then there are some that will attempt to reason it away thereby ignoring the direction of God to trust in the Lord and *lean not on your own understanding*. It is good to use reason to objectively interpret the Bible, but when it contradicts what God has revealed about himself to us, as the understanding that there is no hell does, then we have to discard our reasoning on that.
I prefer to stand by my Lord's (my God's--and this is not a JW forum, they are just allowed to post here though I believe they are a cult. Of course, they will believe that we who proclaim Jesus' deity are a cult. That's just how it is going to be on opposing sides of a belief; you're never going to be able to compromise on these kinds of things which to most Christians--the orthodox ones who adhere to the Nicene Creed--consider fundamental to the faith), I will stand by His clear words even though I personally wish with all my heart that it's not factual. My view though is that when you believe only that which you find to be appealing to your understanding, it is likely going to be a figment of your imagination.
Last edited:
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
Those other gods aren't believed divine; they're what's known in Watchtower
theology as "mighty ones" for example:
• Ps 82:6 . .I have said: You are gods
The word "gods" is translated from the very same word for "God" in Gen 1:1
Well; for sure people aren't divine so "mighty ones" isn't all that bad an
interpretation.
_
The new world translation says Jesus is a god.
That is not recognising Jesus as the Son of God, the second person of the trinity.
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
I guess you got me on that one, I haven't read the entire NWT, perhaps @Aunty Jane can explain that better.
ByGraceThroughFaith
Well-Known Member
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
The label "Son of God" doesn't necessarily indicate Jesus is divine.
For example: all the Messianic kings were sons of God each in their turn,
e.g. David (Ps 89:27) Solomon (2Sam 7:12-14) and all the others (Psalm 2
and Psalm 45)
And then there is Psalm 82:6 which quotes God saying: "You are all sons of
the Most High." (cf. John 10:34-36)
* I've noticed in my 25+ years of internet experience that most Christians
I encounter online are pretty good at bashing Jehovah's Witnesses while not
all that proficient at refuting them.
_
The label "Son of God" doesn't necessarily indicate Jesus is divine.
For example: all the Messianic kings were sons of God each in their turn,
e.g. David (Ps 89:27) Solomon (2Sam 7:12-14) and all the others (Psalm 2
and Psalm 45)
And then there is Psalm 82:6 which quotes God saying: "You are all sons of
the Most High." (cf. John 10:34-36)
* I've noticed in my 25+ years of internet experience that most Christians
I encounter online are pretty good at bashing Jehovah's Witnesses while not
all that proficient at refuting them.
_
ByGraceThroughFaith
Well-Known Member
John 1:1 is very clear to those who like honesty, that Jesus Christ is ALMIGHTY GOD
ByGraceThroughFaith
Well-Known Member
The NWT is a theological version that is published by the Watchtower, and reflets the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their translation of John 1:1, has ZERO to do with the Greek grammar, and only because of their LIES about Jesus Christ!
The Emphatic Daiglott is a Greek-English New Testament, also published by the Watchtower, and reads in John 1:1
"In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God"
Yes, it reads God, and not "a god", in the English version at the right-hand.
Even the Unitarian Dr George Noyes, in his New Testament, renders the Greek here, "and the Word was God". At least he is honset about how it should read!
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
Yours is a very common error.
While true that the Word of John 1:1 is divine, the flesh that the Word
became in John 1:14 wasn't divine, rather; it was a 100% Jewish human
being thru and thru and can be easily shown to be David's biological
progeny; and from thence Abraham's, and from thence Adam's.
It's been my experience that most Christians readily concede that Jesus was
fully God and full Man; while in reality they actually believe he was a divine
hominid because they are unable to discern between the Word's divinity and
his flesh's humanity.
_
Yours is a very common error.
While true that the Word of John 1:1 is divine, the flesh that the Word
became in John 1:14 wasn't divine, rather; it was a 100% Jewish human
being thru and thru and can be easily shown to be David's biological
progeny; and from thence Abraham's, and from thence Adam's.
It's been my experience that most Christians readily concede that Jesus was
fully God and full Man; while in reality they actually believe he was a divine
hominid because they are unable to discern between the Word's divinity and
his flesh's humanity.
_
ByGraceThroughFaith
Well-Known Member
The Greek "θεός", is a noun, and rightly translated as "God" in John 1:1c, as it is the predicate in the sentence, the subject is, "ο λογος". If John wished "ο λογος" to be "divine", then he would have used the correct Greek word, which is the adjective, “θείος”.
Jesus Christ, as in the Greek grammar of John 1:1, is GOD, in EXACTLY the SAME way that the Father is GOD. This cannot be refuted from the Greek by anyone.
the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their Greek Interlinear, FALSELY claim, that their reading, "and the Word was a god", is supported by the Greek scholar, Dr Julius Mantey. He wrote to them in 1974, to deny this, and to expose their LIES!
Dr Mantey's Letter
A difference without distinction. "Divine hominid"... my goodness. For a time, Christ Jesus was, while in the form of God, in the form of man, as Paul says quite clearly.
Grace and peace to you.
Webers_Home
Well-Known Member
.
It is the Watchtower Society's firm conviction that it is impossible for
someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously.
That's actually the basis of their belief that Michael the archangel had to die
in order to come to earth as a human to die for the sins of the world because
he couldn't be an angel and a man both at the same time.
Consequently, Jesus' crucified dead body wasn't restored to life so that
Michael could be resurrected to his angel existence.
BTW: I've encountered Witnesses unaware the Society teaches that Jesus is
still dead and his remains squirreled away somewhere on earth in a
condition and a location known only to God.
Some additional information is contained on page 237 of the April 15, 1963
issue of the Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:
"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."
_
It is the Watchtower Society's firm conviction that it is impossible for
someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously.
That's actually the basis of their belief that Michael the archangel had to die
in order to come to earth as a human to die for the sins of the world because
he couldn't be an angel and a man both at the same time.
Consequently, Jesus' crucified dead body wasn't restored to life so that
Michael could be resurrected to his angel existence.
BTW: I've encountered Witnesses unaware the Society teaches that Jesus is
still dead and his remains squirreled away somewhere on earth in a
condition and a location known only to God.
Some additional information is contained on page 237 of the April 15, 1963
issue of the Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:
"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and
enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be
no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be
taking his sacrifice off God's altar."
_
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
..................................................
"ZERO to do with the [NT] Greek grammar"?? Have you actually studied John's grammar as used in John 1:1c.?
I have studied it carefully and honestly. I have discovered where the best of trinitarian grammarians have ignored the exceptions to their rules (although the reasons for the exceptions are found in their own grammar texts). I have seen no one else do that. The results make it clear that "a god" was intended by John.
My own personal studies from my own blog:
Examining the Trinity: DEFinite John 1:1c and Examining the Trinity
.............
As for the Diaglott, here is a small part of my lengthy DEFinite John 1:1c study:
18 Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:
"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.
This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.
As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."
"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.
19 So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."
But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!
Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."
Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!
Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."
To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!
ByGraceThroughFaith
Well-Known Member
Studying Greek grammar for almost 40 years
Any English translation of John 1.1c that does not read "the Word was God", is FALSE
This does not follow from what I posted, Webers_Home. It's quite non sequitur.
But to the statement itself, I agree, actually, as any good trinitarian would. But it is quite possible ~ and in Jesus was reality ~ to possess the same nature as the "Spirit Being" (the Father is Spirit, John 4:24) while also possessing the same nature as mere human beings (He had taken on this nature... "taken the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" ~ Philippians 2).
I'm quite familiar with the Watchtower Society's "takes" on many things.
Playing around with God's Word and making it out to be something it's not is... not my thing... Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
......................................
theos in John 1:1c, like other unmodified, anarthrous nominative count nouns, is properly considered an indefinite noun and translators add an indefinite article ('a' or 'an') unless it is theos in John 1:1c. See links in my previous post.
The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT. We will look at all the points raised concerning the NWT in a July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society attributed to Mantey (when he was 84!) which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting.
John 1:1
His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in his book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that Mantey's own translation found in his Grammar does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market (p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957 ed.” - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.
Mantey continues, “it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god’ [as in the NWT]. Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering.” If this were really true, then Mantey himself has been neither “scholarly nor reasonable” in his rendering of an identical word order in complete agreement with the NWT rendering of John 1:1.
Similar threads
