The butchering of John 1:1 by JW anti-Trinitarian Translators

[Keiw1]

There are not "20" recognized Greek Translations from recognized/credentialed Greek Scholars from any committee that has "a " god.

I doubt there is even one. And the NWT does not count as any recognized ( peer ) reviewed and acknowleged translation since no one who translated it was educated in N.T. Greek and had a degree in biblical languages.

next fallacy

When one has holy spirit backing they don't need to know languages. God knows them better than anyone. The apostles spoke in tongues( foreign languages) Yet did not know those languages-How-Holy spirit.
Abner kneeland-1822--( non JW, Non trinitarian) In his NT translation compared Greek and English side by side to prove to the world-a god is correct at John 1:1--Of course all of those translations were rejected by trinity religions, it exposes them as false religions , they can't have that.

 

[civic]

When one has holy spirit backing they don't need to know languages. God knows them better than anyone. The apostles spoke in tongues( foreign languages) Yet did not know those languages-How-Holy spirit.
Abner kneeland-1822--( non JW, Non trinitarian) In his NT translation compared Greek and English side by side to prove to the world-a god is correct at John 1:1--Of course all of those translations were rejected by trinity religions, it exposes them as false religions , they can't have that.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[Peterlag]

They are going to hate finding out the hard way that they are being mislead to not enter Gods kingdom.

I don't know if all of them will miss the boat. What I do know is they have no idea how to have a relationship with the Lord.

 

[Peterlag]

You probably want to rewatch that video and "unlike" it.

I am NOT a Greek Scholar, but my comprehension of English is excellent. They made the argument that "declensions" and the need to identify the "predicate nominative" of two things in the Greek that are equal [linking verb "is"] require ONE of the "ho" to be dropped to distinguish between ...

• God was the Word.
• The Word was God.

... in Greek since word order could not be counted on to establish the grammatical "subject" of the verb "is".

Neither You nor @Peterlag (in your dismissal of those that disagree) bothered to address that very specific point of Greek Grammar. To a bystander, like myself (100% Greek hack), it appears that you have only your pat answer about John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:4.

While I may be a hack at GREEK, I am at least CONVERSANT in TRUTH and would happily compare those two verses side by side in English.

John 1:1

• [KJV] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
• [ESV] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
• [YLT] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
• [DBY] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
• [VUL] in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum ("in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word" - Google Translate)

2 Corinthians 4:4

• [KJV] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
• [ESV] In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
• [YLT] in whom the god of this age did blind the minds of the unbelieving, that there doth not shine forth to them the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God;
• [DBY] in whom the god of this world has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine forth for them.
• [VUL] in quibus deus huius saeculi excaecavit mentes infidelium ut non fulgeat inluminatio evangelii gloriae Christi qui est imago Dei ("in which the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, may not shine" - Google Translate)

Examining what these verses actually SAY, it is nonsensical to equate the logical chain of equality presented in John 1:1 (through repetitive "IS" equalities) which emphasize the eternal GOD-ness of Christ (the Word) with a statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 describing "the god of this world" in contrast with Christ as the image of the true God.

John 1:1 is a comparison:

• beginning = Word
• Word = with God
• Word = God

2 Corinthians 4:4 is a contrast

• god of this world = blinded minds
• Christ = image of God that shines

Rather than comparing single words plucked from context for a missing "ho" to draw such a critical theological conclusion as "polytheistic lesser gods", more time spent reading the CONTEXT would yield more LIGHT of Truth.

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. Also there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing. Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[MTMattie]

I don't know if all of them will miss the boat. What I do know is they have no idea how to have a relationship with the Lord.

 

[MTMattie]

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

Because.... you do not understand.... And I am tired of posting scripture from the Holy Book that you do not even read.

Stay in the dark.

 

[atpollard]

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. Also there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing. Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

All I put in front of you was:

1. A summary of a specific technical point of Greek grammar discussed in the video that you have refused to actually address while claiming that everyone claims to know more about Greek than you, when in fact, YOU are the expert.
2. A brief exegesis of the two verses you held up as equivalent uses of “theos” without “ho theos” to prove that both were talking about “lesser gods” and not the True God. [You are exegetically incorrect about those two verses.]

You responded by ignoring BOTH points that I made and addressing NEITHER the Greek grammar flaw (pointed out by Lutheran Satire) NOR the exegetical and logical flaw of false equivalency in two VERY different verses. Instead, you grabbed the goal posts and ran off into uncharted waters.

Was this because you HAD no response to either the Greek Grammar or exegetical non-equivalence?
It leaves your accusations about “nobody will respond to you” rather suspect.
Did you really mean “nobody will blindly agree with me”?

 

[atpollard]

What does the NWT have for John 1:2-5 and how does that reconcile with Genesis 1?

 

[civic]

I don't know if all of them will miss the boat. What I do know is they have no idea how to have a relationship with the Lord.

Who is the Lord ?

 

[atpollard]

Deleted.

 

[Peterlag]

Who is the Lord ?

The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel. Several redemptive characteristics and divine functions are associated with the sacred name Jehovah (Yahweh), including giving righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6), healing (Exodus 15:26), sanctification (Exodus 31:13), providing (Genesis 22:14), protection from enemies (Exodus 17:15), giving peace (Judges 6:24), and being continually present (Ezekiel 48:35). These functions can be assumed and/or delegated by persons having the authority. God has delegated many, if not all of these divine functions to Jesus Christ to share in as "Lord."

 

[Peterlag]

All I put in front of you was:

1. A summary of a specific technical point of Greek grammar discussed in the video that you have refused to actually address while claiming that everyone claims to know more about Greek than you, when in fact, YOU are the expert.
2. A brief exegesis of the two verses you held up as equivalent uses of “theos” without “ho theos” to prove that both were talking about “lesser gods” and not the True God. [You are exegetically incorrect about those two verses.]

You responded by ignoring BOTH points that I made and addressing NEITHER the Greek grammar flaw (pointed out by Lutheran Satire) NOR the exegetical and logical flaw of false equivalency in two VERY different verses. Instead, you grabbed the goal posts and ran off into uncharted waters.

Was this because you HAD no response to either the Greek Grammar or exegetical non-equivalence?
It leaves your accusations about “nobody will respond to you” rather suspect.
Did you really mean “nobody will blindly agree with me”?

I have not refused. I don't know Greek grammar. But I know that Greek grammar is not a teaching on the trinity because Jesus is not God. That much I do know.

 

[Peterlag]

Because.... you do not understand.... And I am tired of posting scripture from the Holy Book that you do not even read.

Stay in the dark.

I read a lot of your stuff unless you post 18 verses from 18 different books.

 

[civic]

The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel. Several redemptive characteristics and divine functions are associated with the sacred name Jehovah (Yahweh), including giving righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6), healing (Exodus 15:26), sanctification (Exodus 31:13), providing (Genesis 22:14), protection from enemies (Exodus 17:15), giving peace (Judges 6:24), and being continually present (Ezekiel 48:35). These functions can be assumed and/or delegated by persons having the authority. God has delegated many, if not all of these divine functions to Jesus Christ to share in as "Lord."

So you worship Jesus who is Lord correct ?

 

[101G]

The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel. Several redemptive characteristics and divine functions are associated with the sacred name Jehovah (Yahweh), including giving righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6), healing (Exodus 15:26), sanctification (Exodus 31:13), providing (Genesis 22:14), protection from enemies (Exodus 17:15), giving peace (Judges 6:24), and being continually present (Ezekiel 48:35). These functions can be assumed and/or delegated by persons having the authority. God has delegated many, if not all of these divine functions to Jesus Christ to share in as "Lord."

that's Jesus. in the OT .......... in GL.

101G

 

[Peterlag]

that's Jesus. in the OT .......... in GL.

101G

That was the Lord God in all those places in the Old Testament.

 

[Peterlag]

So you worship Jesus who is Lord correct ?

I'm in fellowship... a relationship with both the resurrected Christ and God. I Love and praise and honor both of them.

 

[civic]

I'm in fellowship... a relationship with both the resurrected Christ and God. I Love and praise and honor both of them.

How could you possibly have a relationship with a man you have never seen, heard or met ?

That’s like saying I have a relationship with Moses, David, Apostle Paul etc…

Impossible

 

[MTMattie]

All you folks ever put in front of me are bits and pieces of words and half verses that are scattered all over the Bible. Also there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. Such a concept accomplishes nothing. Romans says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it?

Obviously you are not one of the ones that is to know. You are blinded and you cannot hear. God does that to certain people but I should not give you chapter and verse again as you wont read it or understand... but
knowing you wont look it up in a real bible...................................................

So here are some bits and pieces for you.

John 12:40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”
Matt 18:14 “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Mark 4:12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Isaiah 6:10 “Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.”

Jesus spoke in parables, alot. Why? Parables abound in the bible for folks like you.

Bits and pieces.... sheesh

Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

Oh ye of little faith.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[101G]

That was the Lord God in all those places in the Old Testament.

and NT who is Jesus. just learn what Ordinal designation means.

GL.

101G.