john1;1-2

[InChristAlways]

Col. 1:15-17, RS: "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation . . . All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things."

John 17:5, RS: "[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (Also John 8:23)

However you want to spin the translation, it is clear that the Logos is of the same essence as the Theos, was with the Theos in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt among us as the Icon of the living God, Jesus. The unity between the Theos and the Logos is clear. These are the truths we should focus on, rather than the spin. JMHO.

Hi seattlegirl. Short but "sweet", though "Image" can also be used.
Steve

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

So he went on to say to them: "YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world john 8;23 yes he came from heaven where his father was, that is why he also said

Quite correct.

(John 16:28) I came out from the Father and have come into the world. Further, I am leaving the world and am going my way to the Father

Most other Bibles state: "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." (there is no out). This single word changes the enter meaning of the sentence.

John 17:5, RS: "[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (Also John 8:23) yes he was there before

The word here is began, not made, in most Bibles. "Made", implies completed, wherein "began" implies conceived. Again the meaning of the sentence changes.

Jesus answered: "My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source john 18;36 he said this because he knew that his kingdom was not going to be on the earth ,it was going to be in a future time in the heavens and it is now established in the heavens since 1914

"...But now my kingdom is from another place." Jesus then went on to specifically state that He IS a king (not will be a king), when responding to Pilate's question. Leaving that little continuance out of the statement changes the entire meaning again. In fact it places Jesus in the role of monarch at the moment He was addressing Pilate, and not at some time in the future.

(John 13:3) he, knowing that the Father had given all things into [his] hands and that he came forth from God and was going to God

Again, most Bibles state that Jesus had come from God, not come forth from God. This changes the meaning of the sentence.

One version presents the idea that Jesus was sent by God, while the other version presents the idea that Jesus was issued out from God (made, created, born). These concepts define the being "Jesus" as finite, as opposed to infinite.

I've searched the entire Bible, for one word to indicate that Jesus is sub-equal to God, and that word would be "lord". God is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". And not surprisingly, Jesus is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". This is a title for only one being...the almighty.

v/r

Q

[mee]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Mee - you seem to constantly baffle others by presenting an argument, then confounding it, then stepping back and saying 'see, I am right!' so that no-one has any idea quoite what you are saying.

Either you propose ditheism (and thereby polytheism) - Jesus Christ is not God but 'a god' - then there is God the Father, and another God the Son, and another ... and another ... much like the Hindu pantheon, in which case your doctrine is not Christian, nor Jewish - both of whom would rather die than accept anything other than One God, or you accept what Seattlegal stated quite succinctly:

"However you want to spin the translation, it is clear that the Logos is of the same essence as the Theos, was with the Theos in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt among us as the Icon of the living God, Jesus. The unity between the Theos and the Logos is clear. These are the truths we should focus on, rather than the spin."

So the question for you is:
Are you a monotheist - yes or no?

Do you believe in the Divinity of Christ - yes or no?

And please, a simple 'yes' or 'no' in each case will suffice,

Thomas

i believe what the bible itself teaches ,and that is ... Jehovah is the God Almighty and the most high

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,

You alone are the Most High over all the earth ..psalm 83;18 and Jesus is

The only-begotten Son of God, the ONLY Son produced by Jehovah alone and he was sent to the earth

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life john 3;16 simple really and very clear

Col. 1:15-17, RS: "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation . . . All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things ........and as the first-born he is the one who has the legal right to inherit the kingship in the heavens .......and he has in 1914

it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him ezekiel 21;27 its all happening thrilling times indeed its all working out as Jehovah wants it to , and i find the bible to be very clear about who Jesus is

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Quite correct.



Most other Bibles state: "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." (there is no out). This single word changes the enter meaning of the sentence.



The word here is began, not made, in most Bibles. "Made", implies completed, wherein "began" implies conceived. Again the meaning of the sentence changes.



"...But now my kingdom is from another place." Jesus then went on to specifically state that He IS a king (not will be a king), when responding to Pilate's question. Leaving that little continuance out of the statement changes the entire meaning again. In fact it places Jesus in the role of monarch at the moment He was addressing Pilate, and not at some time in the future.



Again, most Bibles state that Jesus had come from God, not come forth from God. This changes the meaning of the sentence.

One version presents the idea that Jesus was sent by God, while the other version presents the idea that Jesus was issued out from God (made, created, born). These concepts define the being "Jesus" as finite, as opposed to infinite.

I've searched the entire Bible, for one word to indicate that Jesus is sub-equal to God, and that word would be "lord". God is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". And not surprisingly, Jesus is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". This is a title for only one being...the almighty.

v/r

Q[/font]

So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was NWT now this translation to me seems to fit the rest of the bible

(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." yes he had been in the heavens with his father before abraham was even born

(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;..... and there we go again first-born

[InChristAlways]

I've searched the entire Bible, for one word to indicate that Jesus is sub-equal to God, and that word would be "lord". God is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". And not surprisingly, Jesus is never called "lord", but rather "Lord". This is a title for only one being...the almighty.

v/r

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." yes he had been in the heavens with his father before abraham was even born

(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;..... and there we go again first-born

He was also called the Christ and the "rock".

(Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 10:4 And, all, drank, the same spiritual drink,--for they continued to drink of the spiritual rock that followed them, and, the rock, was the Christ:--

(Young) 1 Corinthians 10:4 and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;

[taijasi]

I think we might pay special attention to John 14:10 ...

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (my emphasis)

In fact, John 14:10-13 further helps to clarify, for me, our relation to Christ & to the Father, as well as the relationship between Christ and the Father.

One might even read through John 14:16, where the `Comforter' is mentioned.

Even after this, in John 14, Christ speaks more of our relationship to the Father. Yes, John is the most mystical of the Four Synoptics, and to some, his meaning is often considered vague. But to me, these passages are rather clear, and helpful.

andrew

[Quahom1]

So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was NWT now this translation to me seems to fit the rest of the bible

Correct, Jesus "put aside His Godhead" in order to walk among us and help us understand Him, in terms we could fathom.

(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

For you, this is belief.

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." yes he had been in the heavens with his father before abraham was even born

Actually it was more like "Before Abraham existed, I AM...

(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;..... and there we go again first-born

The interesting subtlety of this passage is that He is the image of the invisible God (who is creation), Hence by all rights with the Father, Jesus is creation. The Bible even states that Jesus is the author of creation. This implies strongly with that fact that with the beginning of God, came the beginning of creation (a rational conclusion), and since Jesus is infinite like the Father is infinite, and the image and likeness of Jehovah, they are equal and the same. Jesus, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, is God.

v/r

Q

[E99]

Hello again InChristAlways


Sorry for the late reply, but I can't get on here often.


Your quote:
Hi E99. Did you happen to notice that the word "brimstone" in revelation is also derived from theos as I never noticed that before untill I started looking up the different usages of "theos"?


Thanks for the interesting post ICA, although slightly off subject. I'm sure though that the words theion meaning: Divine being, and theion meaning: Brimstone, (or sulphur) as found in the book of Revelation are not from the same root, but your concordance quote seems to imply this. Its not that clear. Regarding the word theos and theon, for instance, the plural theoi in Greek is usually transliterated from the Hebrew plural elohim, whereas the word for brimstone or sulphur in the OT Hebrew is gphrith.


The expression to theion "is derived from the adjective theíos, meaning ‘pertaining to God,’ ‘divine.’" It is found at acts 17:29 where it reads:
"Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the 'Divine Being' is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man.

Maybe theionsulphur) and theion (divinity) are like the English word 'row'....a quarrel, or row as in a line, sequence. The same words visually, but not with the same meaning. If you find out more about the root of theion please post the information.



Your quote:
I will read your post more thoroughly and "unbiased", as it is very informative but a lot to "digest" in one sitting. [I will still stay "non denominational" for now though.

In a sense it is biased, because I am a Jehovahs witness, trying to be unbiased, but I would add that it is not without the point of reasoning on the scripture for I was not bought up as a JW but changed by reasoning on the indepth translating on some of the scriptures and not any form of instilled faith. So Good for you, for remaining non denominational. I was in your position once upon a time, but the truth found about the one and only true God due to the transliteration of the original languages, and the grammar that gives the indication of what the biblically God inspired writers were trying to say, swung me over to one denominational view, especially so at John 1:1

Please come back to discuss this particular scripture if necessary. It is known as a proof text to describe the triune God, but is it really a proof text ?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by E99

In a sense it is biased, because I am a Jehovahs witness, trying to be unbiased, but I would add that it is not without the point of reasoning on the scripture for I was not bought up as a JW but changed by reasoning on the indepth translating on some of the scriptures and not any form of instilled faith. So Good for you, for remaining non denominational. I was in your position once upon a time, but the truth found about the one and only true God due to the transliteration of the original languages, and the grammar that gives the indication of what the biblically God inspired writers were trying to say, swung me over to one denominational view, especially so at John 1:1

Please come back to discuss this particular scripture if necessary. It is known as a proof text to describe the triune God, but is it really a proof text ?

That, I was not aware of. However, I am very glad to see you here.

v/r

Q

[E99]

Hello Quahom1


Your quote:
There is no belittling anyone about their choice of wording. There is only pointing out the fact that the use of a single word, or letter in the pharase or sentences can and does change the entire meaning of the phrase. My logic is sound, nor do I consider my education in languages shoddy.


To get to this point first....Apologies. I'm sorry that you took this the wrong way, I did not mean that your work is shoddy, It is not at all, but that your reference qouted was shoddy. Your posts are always challenging, informative and obviously you have good understanding of Russian etc. (My Russian is nearly non existant.)


I state the previous also because I showed your post relating to the Russian language, to a Russian lady that works for us. In her own words she said..." He is Rrrrusshan..........He must be Rrrrusshan ! "
The 'shoddy' comment I made was because I was suprised that you picked a source that I think is shoddy, (and illogical,) one where the quoted article tried to say that the Greek word 'tis' usually translated as 'any' could have been used in the third clause of John 1:1, where realistically it could not be used.




Your quote:
Thanks for your thoughts. As I stated, Russian is very similar in construction, alphabet and syntax to Greek (Thanks to St. Cyril). The use of articles is rare, particularly indefinite articles. Emphasis is often derived from the inflection of one's voice.


V' nachalye bweelo Slova, ee Slova bweela oo Boga, ee Slova bweela Bog.
In beginning was Word, and Word was with God, and Word was God.

This is almost the same as the koine Greek, but more importantly it is not Greek, We'll not going to learn a great deal about what the God inspired scriptures are trying to say at John 1:1 from Russian, except that the construct is almost the same.


Your quote:
Interestingly enough, the scripture in Russian, is almost identical to Greek, structurally, grammatically, etc. English however is were scripture starts becoming complicated.

Maybe, to a point, due to the inclusion in our language of the indefinate article 'a', but the sense of what John was trying to say can still be assertained by the known understanding of the Greek grammar, and that sense can be relayed to our language. He isn't here to tell us what he meant, but the original writing is the best that we are going to get..... God inspired, so there's no 'spin' to be found at the root of it all...the language used.


Your quote:
In Russian as well as Greek, the phrase "? ????? ???? ???", reads "and Word was (masculine form) God." If the author wanted the phrase to read "and Word was a god", the archaic term "ectb" could have been used, or ?????? ???, or ?????? ??? ???? (which means "a god" or "another god").


The Russian lady claims that the ectb is still used in Russian today, and of course it is the same as our etcetera from the latin etcetera 'etc': meaning a number of unspecified persons or things, or additional odds and ends; extras.
This Russian lady I know, as a friend, is a church member, and trinitarian, but she said that the word ectb could not be realistically placed in the third clause of John 1:1 i Russian.
It doesn't matter anyway, because it is not the koine Greek.


Latin of course was spoken by the ruling Romans at the time of John, and there is no indication anywhere that the word etcetera was mingled into the Greek. John didn't use it at John 1:1, He left out all other words with an indefinate feeling, for it wouldn't have made any sense and would have confused the hearer or reader. The third clause Kai theos en ho logos ending in the translation as 'was God' only appears to say that the word was God when directly translated to English, but the meaning of the qualitative nature of theos 'god' indicates the sense of indefiniteness in Greek and the need for an indefinite article by way of translation to English...a divine being and not 'the God'.


Russian like Greek, as you say, the construct is similar and there is no indefinite article in Russian. I asked 'our Russian lady' what she would put in into the clause "and the word was god" if she translated it to Russian without our English 'a' ...
She replied "the"..." There iz only one God "...Pointing up to the ceiling ! "
That I agree with, but I said to her that you'd put a definate article 'the' in, where John could have put it in next to theos, but didn't ! ?"


I also asked how she would grammatically translate to Russian the phrase "The man is a murderer". She said ..."The man murderer".... "The indefinate article 'a' is left out, but it has the same sense that he is a murderer". She said.....
This phrase is in the bible at Acts 28:4 with the same construct as John 1:1... She therefore illustrated how Russian, like Greek, leaves out the indefinate article 'a' because there is not one, but unwittingly showed that the Greek, missing the indefinite article 'a' is only invisible in writing, but realistically it gives a sense as if it is there, so that 'a' in murderer' is being implied, likewise 'a' in 'god'... divine being is being implied at John1:1 and can be translated with the indefinite article.



Your quote:
In Russian as well as Greek, the phrase "и Слово было Бог", reads "and Word was (masculine form) God." If the author wanted the phrase to read "and Word was a god", the archaic term "ectb" could have been used, or другой бог, or другой тип бога (which means "a god" or "another god").


But this is not the original Greek. John was not Russian, so we are still are not going to get the whole pure sense of what he was trying to say by looking at the translation of other languages.

Your quote:
Jesus set aside His godhead for a time. One can not know what it is like for someone else unless one walks a mile in the other's shoes. Otherwise it will always be on the outside looking in. Our God, walked among us and felt what we felt, laughed like we laugh, cried at the same sorrows and pain we suffer. Got scared like we do. Got angry, was put upon, and felt the taste of death. Is this such a strange concept? What better way to know how to deal with us, than to have lived and died among us? The difference is He beat death, and promised us the same.



But if Jesus was God, God had no need to have faced the ways of man, merely for the experience. It is theologically recognised that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, all knowing and all experienced and knowledgeable in everything. He would have known already what it was like to be us...death and living by seeing every intricacy about our nature, right down to the very atomic structure. He created us. He can name every star in the heavens, created everything in its complexity, can ressurrect, regenerate...anything is possible to God.
For man, he is limited, we have to experience everything to get a better understanding. God, he does not need to.


Your Quote:
Let us also consider the French versions of the beginning of this paragraph, and we find a striking similarity to the Russian and Greek versions however, like English, the French make much use of articles to further explain (and a god or 'un dieu' is not in the passage.

"Au commencement était celui qui est la Parole de Dieu. Il était avec Dieu, il était lui-même Dieu."

At comencement (at beginning) was that which is the Word of God. He was with God, he was the same God... or

"Au commencement était la Parole, et la Parole était avec Dieu, et la Parole était Dieu."

At comencement (at beginning) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


I found one reference from the French regarding John 1:1...
La Bible centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean,1928 translates it as " and the word was a divine being."



Your quote:
Now I understand that "la Parole" is a feminine term, but then the word "Word" in French (as la Parole is used here), is considered feminine. If however one were to call a father who stated he was the last word to his child "feminine", one might be in for an hell of a fight...as opposed to "the hell of a fight"...


Thats your feminine loving French for you ! Its all Greek to me...On second thoughts its not Greek , but I wish it was, maybe we could get somewhere.


Your quote:

One last thought on this issue, using German:

Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort."

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


A reference from a German bible:
Jurgen Becker,Das Evangelium der Johannes 1979 translation puts it: "a god was the logos"


Whatever, this is neither here nor there. These are translations. Do you believe in Timothy 3:16 ? ..."All scripture is inspired of God." We have to get to the source. The original language.



Your quote:
If all of these versions of the Bible in different languages are all saying the same thing...where is "...and the Word was a god"?


From the only language that should really concern us ...The original one that man was using at the time of the writing. The language that God utilised by inspiring the writers he used at that time, and Greek so happened to be the main language used in the scriptures at the time of John 1:1. (Not forgetting the concept of a singular God derived from the translation from Hebrew in the OT.)

Would it really have been an alien concept for John to have known that the word logos was a god, a divine being, and not the one and only true God, merely because we think that there was no specific way to grammatically apply this indefinate article in writing in Greek ? Realistically there was a way to grammatically put this sense over ? The way of not using the definate article 'the' in the third clause, and leaving it out to indicate to those that lived at the time that the sense of a divine being was indeed being shown. Anyone from that time, if they lived today would wonder what all the fuss is about, and give us the true sense of what John was saying to us.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by E99

Hello Quahom1

To get to this point first....Apologies. I'm sorry that you took this the wrong way, I did not mean that your work is shoddy, It is not at all, but that your reference qouted was shoddy. Your posts are always challenging, informative and obviously you have good understanding of Russian etc. (My Russian is nearly non existant.)


I state the previous also because I showed your post relating to the Russian language, to a Russian lady that works for us. In her own words she said..." He is Rrrrusshan..........He must be Rrrrusshan ! "

Thanks, but only in heart. And please give this note to your Russian associate:

"Большое спасибо, нежно женщина. И может мир бога быть с вами."

Дима

'Tis' a thank you for her kindness.

The 'shoddy' comment I made was because I was suprised that you picked a source that I think is shoddy, (and illogical,) one where the quoted article tried to say that the Greek word 'tis' usually translated as 'any' could have been used in the third clause of John 1:1, where realistically it could not be used.

We can tackle the original Greek, if you wish...if sticking to the 'original' text is more comfortable with you...I'm not too shabby with that either.

Whatever, this is neither here nor there. These are translations. Do you believe in Timothy 3:16 ? ..."All scripture is inspired of God." We have to get to the source. The original language.

That would be a bit difficult, since John spoke Aramaic, and there doesn't seem to be anything written about the Gospel in that language. So I guess we're stuck with Greek.

Your Quote:
"where is "...and the Word was a god"?

From the only language that should really concern us ...The original one that man was using at the time of the writing. The language that God utilised by inspiring the writers he used at that time, and Greek so happened to be the main language used in the scriptures at the time of John 1:1. (Not forgetting the concept of a singular God derived from the translation from Hebrew in the OT.)

Would it really have been an alien concept for John to have known that the word logos was a god, a divine being, and not the one and only true God, merely because we think that there was no specific way to grammatically apply this indefinate article in writing in Greek ? Realistically there was a way to grammatically put this sense over ? The way of not using the definate article 'the' in the third clause, and leaving it out to indicate to those that lived at the time that the sense of a divine being was indeed being shown. Anyone from that time, if they lived today would wonder what all the fuss is about, and give us the true sense of what John was saying to us.

Then let us contend with the original Greek and tear it apart to see what it said. I can't describe how up I am for this endeavor. Obviously I like languages, eh? Actually, I like accurate communication. It helps us slip into the mind of the communicator, when we understand where he or she is coming from. Then we can see through their eyes...would you agree?

Oh, I think in time you might not find the article 'tis' so illogical to use, after all, but then...who can say?

Thanks for your thoughts.

v/r

Q

Edit: Ask your friend if she would have said "Человек убил", or "OH Душегуб" ?

And while she was saying that, was she picturing the "killer" in her mind, and did her face show emotion? Again, you asked her to translate her native tongue into English, but I opine much was lost in the translation, because english speakers are not used to tone, inflection, inuendo's so subtle the tick of the tongue at the end of a word would be missed, but not to the native of the language. A variation of the tongue curled on one sylable, changes the whole meaning of a thought.

[E99]

Hello Thomas



Sorry for the late reply. You ask a good question.





Your quote:

If, as some suggest, the translation should read 'a God' and not simply 'God', is John then not preaching polytheism?





No, not really, he is only recognising polytheism, because he would be recognising that yet another divine being 'a god' existed, as much as he would have recognised any of the number of 'divine beings' found in the OT.





Many of the early Christians and OT Jews must have had a good knowledge of divine 'supernatural beings' from their understanding and learning of the scriptures, as many of them studied the scriptures daily. Jehovah’s witnesses have been, by their claim to be monotheistic, accused of being polytheistic and henotheistic, but extending our monotheistic belief in one God to the belief in a multitude of gods is not wrong, or polytheistic if we believe the obvious, the recognition of their existence... Other false gods existed in ancient history...Dagon, Zeus, Artemis etc, and other divine beings such as the angels e.g. Gabriel, cherubs and seraphs in the scriptures, just as John would have recognised this same fact, and similarly he possibly believed 'a god' the word, as another divine being, and a divine being of the highest importance in the sense that John 1:1 seems to show.





Polytheism is not defined by the recognition of ‘gods’ only, but I think that it is defined more so by believing in them as true supreme gods or a supreme multi faceted god, to the point of WORSHIPPING those other gods, like the Romans and Egyptians did. We worship only the one and true God Jehovah....Monotheism.

Monotheism is only a relatively recently coined word from koine Greek: monos: alone, single, one and theism 'god' + ism... belief.





If we look at 2 Corinthians 4:4 we notice that the devil is called a god. It reads :

" Among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. Believing that he exists, but not worshipping him.







The bible is littered with gods, false ones and divine beings, the scriptures state that there is one God and others could be called gods. Psalms 82:6 "I myself have said, ‘you are gods,' And all of you are sons of the Most High."







There are many scriptures referring to one true God: Gen 5:22,24 Job 1:6 Dan 1:2,9,17 etc. Gods word does say that you must be careful who you give worship to. Remember the occasion where John prostrated himself to do worship to the angel that was sent by God, It illustrated that we must be cautious, it is the one and only true God that we must worship. John fell down to do worship to one of Gods angels, a divine being sent to him at Revelation 22:8-9:

"Well, I John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things 9: But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.”

[JohnOneOne]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

The Watchtower Society needed a bible to conform to their doctrines, and so they created one. The "translation" was done by a five-member committee in Brooklyn, New York. Four of these men had a highschool education only, with no Hebrew or Greek knowledge at all. The fifth man, Fred. W. Franz, although claiming to know Hebrew and Greek (without credentials), while under oath in a Scottish Court of Law, failed a simple Hebrew test. He was a college sophomore dropout, and lied about being offered a Rhodes Scholarship. The Society refuses to name their translators, and prefers to be anonymous and "humble"!

No reputable scholar will endorse this "translation"

"In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (New World Translation).

Following are comments by some of the experts in the field of Biblical languages:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It may interest you (and others here following this subject), that most all of the above scholars' claims have been addressed. This can be found as a link entitled "In Defense of the NWT - John 1:1 Files," on my website, which can be found by going to w w w dot goodcompanionbooks dot com.

Although it may be quite cumbersome to read thru it all, I do believe it does at least demonstrate that, simply because such opposition towards the New World Translation can be found, there are, on the other hand, any number of Jehovah's Witnesses who are more than willing to provide a similarly, well researched, well thought out scholarly response, that is, to such well intentioned yet ill-conceived opposition.

I thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me to provide a reply to what might have, otherwise, caused some to question the accuracy of Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation.

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Search for: goodcompanionbooks on Google.

[Faithfulservant]

youre telling me that I have to buy the book to see the comments refuted? no thanks

[JohnOneOne]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

youre telling me that I have to buy the book to see the comments refuted? no thanks

No, you needn't "buy the book to see the comments refuted."

Apparently you either didn't read what I had written or what I did write wasn't clear - see again:

"It may interest you (and others here following this subject), that most all of the above scholars' claims have been addressed. This can be found as a link entitled "In Defense of the NWT - John 1:1 Files," on my website, which can be found by going to w w w dot goodcompanionbooks dot com."

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
Search for: goodcompanionbooks on Google.