sooda
Veteran Member
Yep.. They marry early and basically get left behind.. and they will sue you in a heartbeat.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?
- Thread starter calm
- Start date
Yep.. They marry early and basically get left behind.. and they will sue you in a heartbeat.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I think that is reflective of the culture rather than the religion itself.
Here in South Africa there are radically different communities and the religions affect each with different results. JW's in poor areas are poor and uneducated because that is the culture in the area. JW's in rich areas are generally well off and educated because that is the culture in the area.
From what I know about America it somehow produces fundamentalist groups such as JW's, Mormons, Adventists, etc, which would mean that there is something within certain communities in America which maybe provide a catalyst for such groups. And the people in America who follow such groups, especially within the Bible Belt, are really extreme in their viewpoints. Even among JW's in South Africa, American JW's are seen as weird, over the top and especially ignorant.
sooda
Veteran Member
You are correct to a point. All Southerners are not uneducated.. Pentecostals and JWs definitely have a common problem.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I hope I didn't give the impression I think all Southerners are uneducated. That would be illogical on my part. i do think that many of the fundamentalists are nutters though.
sooda
Veteran Member
Yeah and so defensive..
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Do the guys who say "All Gays will go to Hell" and "God hates Gays" come mainly from there?
tigger2
Active Member
Calm #16
"The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.
......................................
[T2 - The "pre-conceived theology" has caused the traditional (trinitarian) understanding of John 1:1c to be "God."]
.........................................
.... 3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
..............................................
[ T2 - This is untrue. In Greek, as in English, such constructions frequently have the definite article for the subject and indefinite for the p.n. This is simply because it is normal to go from the definite to the general: the man was a carpenter; the church was a house; etc.
So we see that every construction parallel to John 1:1c (p.n. without article found before the verb) has that p.n. translated with the indefinite article:
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all
H,W 4. John 8:44(a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
Excluded are the ambiguous 'prepositional' examples, non-count nouns, abstracts, personal names, etc.]
................................................................
The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
..................................................................
[ T2 - 1. We are concerned with John's use of theos here, not theon.
2. There are 13 uses of theon in the Gospel of John. Nine of them clearly use the definite article! (two others are in a series of nouns where the initial article is understood to to apply to the others). Theon in John 10:33 does not have the article and the NWT (and NEB) translate it as "a god."
3. John 1:18 uses both theon and theos - these are not "the same term." An anarthrous accusative noun (including theon) when used as a direct object and found before its verb is understood to be definite. Therefore the anarthrous theon in 1:18 is properly understood to be 'the god' or God. Theos in 1:18 has no article and is properly rendered "a god."]
.......................................................
--This is false and so easily looked up that it is without excuse.
The NWT has always rendered John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god."--
clear - I'm sorry, I actually mean "a God," not "one God." Was a little mistake of mine. Corrected it. But "a God" is also wrong, see above.
"The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.
......................................
[T2 - The "pre-conceived theology" has caused the traditional (trinitarian) understanding of John 1:1c to be "God."]
.........................................
.... 3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
..............................................
[ T2 - This is untrue. In Greek, as in English, such constructions frequently have the definite article for the subject and indefinite for the p.n. This is simply because it is normal to go from the definite to the general: the man was a carpenter; the church was a house; etc.
So we see that every construction parallel to John 1:1c (p.n. without article found before the verb) has that p.n. translated with the indefinite article:
H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations
H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all
H,W 4. John 8:44(a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all
H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all
H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all
H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all
H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all
H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all
[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]
H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all
H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all
H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all
H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all
H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all
18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all
Excluded are the ambiguous 'prepositional' examples, non-count nouns, abstracts, personal names, etc.]
................................................................
The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
..................................................................
[ T2 - 1. We are concerned with John's use of theos here, not theon.
2. There are 13 uses of theon in the Gospel of John. Nine of them clearly use the definite article! (two others are in a series of nouns where the initial article is understood to to apply to the others). Theon in John 10:33 does not have the article and the NWT (and NEB) translate it as "a god."
3. John 1:18 uses both theon and theos - these are not "the same term." An anarthrous accusative noun (including theon) when used as a direct object and found before its verb is understood to be definite. Therefore the anarthrous theon in 1:18 is properly understood to be 'the god' or God. Theos in 1:18 has no article and is properly rendered "a god."]
.......................................................
--This is false and so easily looked up that it is without excuse.
The NWT has always rendered John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god."--
clear - I'm sorry, I actually mean "a God," not "one God." Was a little mistake of mine. Corrected it. But "a God" is also wrong, see above.
Last edited:
tigger2
Active Member
reply to calm #20
Dr. A.T. Robertson was not only highly respected for his scholarship, but he was staunchly trinitarian.
Look at some other respected trinitarian authorities who also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.
Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:
“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”
University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.
An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”
And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”
Another acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,
“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”
Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.”
The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).
Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”
When even two trinitarian scholars disagree with a standard 'trinity proof', it is certain that the 'proof' is doubtful!
Dr. A.T. Robertson was not only highly respected for his scholarship, but he was staunchly trinitarian.
Look at some other respected trinitarian authorities who also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.
Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:
“God is thy throne for ever and ever.”
University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God” - p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.
An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”
And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”
Another acclaimed scholar of trinitarian Christendom has translated this verse similarly and made some interesting comments. Trinitarian Dr. William Barclay,
“world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and, later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow.”
Dr. Barclay, in his translation of the New Testament, has also rendered Hebrews 1:8 as : “God is your throne for ever and ever.”
The American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and The New English Bible (NEB) have provided alternate readings to the traditional trinitarian rendering of the KJV at Hebrews 1:8. These alternate readings (found in footnotes) agree with Dr. Moffatt’s, Dr. Barclay’s, Smith-Goodspeed’s, Byington’s, and the New World Translation’s renderings of this scripture (“God is your throne”).
Even Young’s Concise Bible Commentary (written by the famous trinitarian author of Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible) admits: “[Heb. 1:8] may be justly rendered ‘God is thy throne ...’ in either case it is applicable to the mediatorial throne only.”
When even two trinitarian scholars disagree with a standard 'trinity proof', it is certain that the 'proof' is doubtful!
Last edited:
Hi @Israel Khan ;
I apologize, I assumed you had a bit of Hebrew since you spoke of Hebrew Elohim being translated as “angels”. I agree with you and others regarding the concept that certain words in original texts are changed for reasons other than that the changes represent good translation.
1) WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR VARIOUS TRANSLATORS OF VARIOUS VERSIONS TO CONSCIOUSLY RENDER THE TEXT INACCURATELY
For example, NIV of Psalms 8:5 reads “You have made them[a] a littler lower than the angels and crowned them[c] with glory and honor.
The footnotes read as follow : [a] Or him, Or than God, [c] Or him.
Now the actual Hebrew word “Elohim” אֱלֹהִ֑ים does NOT mean “men” or “Judges” or “angels”, BUT the words “men” or “judges” or “men” have been inserted in the place of "elohim" or “God”.
Even the parsing is incorrect. The NIV Hebrew for “made them a little lower” corresponds to the Hebrew SINGULAR verb that reads, “made HIM (male singular) a little lower…” וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ. The NIV Hebrew for “and crowned them” corresponds to a Hebrew SINGULAR verb “have crowned HIM” תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ (again, male, SINGULAR).
The point here is that whether one uses “Elohim to mean “God” (singular) or “judges" (plural), the context of what is made lower, and what is crowned refers to a singular object, not plural objects. In this case the footnote is more correct than the text. Doug Moos translating team know this. One then needs to ask what the motivation was to render it incorrectly as they did.
IF Elohim means “God” and not “judges” or “angels”, can you not think of a reason that a translator would be uncomfortable to render the translation as “God” and would RATHER render it as almost ANYTHING else other than "God"?
I would expect the logical reply would have been, “Well, the translator might be uncomfortable” translating the sentence as “You made him a little lower than God (or Gods)” since this would have seemed blasphemous and improper to use the word “God” for “Elohim” in this specific instance (whereas it would be fine in other instances….).
Doug Moo was the head of the team that translated the NIV. I expect that their team had the expertise to know that whatever noun the man was made lower than was a singular, whether the noun was “angel” or “judge” or “man” but used “angels” since it would have been very uncomfortable to their theology to render “elohim” as “God” in this instance.
As another example, John 1:18. In Greek the most correct version we have reads : Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. This is the version in the Greek Translators 4th version (GN-4).
It means : “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (ἐξηγήσατο actually means “explained” but in this case, “declared him” or “made him known” is a more comfortable English).
However, The NIV reads, “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
While the NIV is very popular (I use it and LIKE it), it is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, “rendering” of the Greek in this instance. Nowhere in the Greek does it say “who is himself God” and “is in closest relationship with the Father”.
These phrases are completely bogus and represent a contamination of the text with the biases and theology of the translating team members. I think a similar motivation is at work here that was at work at Psalms 8:5, i.e. discomfort with the actual text.
What I think happened is that Doug Moos Group knew the Greek versions that read “monogenes Theos” (only begotten God) in the second phrase was the more correct, but it was an uncomfortable translation to make for their readers (who, in the main, would NOT like the phrase “only begotten God” in the text. Thus I think they tried to create a phrasing that gave some deference to the actual Greek text while trying to keep the translation from any uncomfortable rendering. It is a case of dogma, driving translation due to translator discomfort with accurate translation.
The NWTranslation phrase done by Frederick Franz is actually a correct rendering. “The only begotten God” is the better Greek.
Having said this, I do NOT like Frederick Franzs’ renderings in the main. I think he did a terrible, terrible Job at creating a terrible bible and he corrupted much of the text in his OWN tendency to have his OWN dogma, driving his translation. My point is that he did a good Job on this specific phrase.
In any case, I did not want to encourage you to believe that the NWT is an accurate work, but did not want to engage in the dishonesty of claiming it is ALL a terrible work.
Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in the example I gave) translate incorrectly due to bias.
Luther, for example, left out the second commandment in his earliest version since he didn’t think the second of the ten commandments applied to modern Christians. He was forced by public opinion to add the commandment back into later versions. (This is why the ten commandments were different in protestant and catholic Europe for a time.)
MANY, Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in this case) translate incorrectly due to discomfort with what the original text actually says. This is also why I supported the comments made by @Audie that “Evrrybody "falsifies" the bible.” (Audie in post #7) and @shunyadragon s' point that “From this perspective the Bible has been edited, redacted, and added to, and interpreted in many ways to justify an agenda. The JW is just one more in a long history” (post #9)
I hope your journey is good and wonderful in this life
Clear
σeτωτζω
I apologize, I assumed you had a bit of Hebrew since you spoke of Hebrew Elohim being translated as “angels”. I agree with you and others regarding the concept that certain words in original texts are changed for reasons other than that the changes represent good translation.
1) WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR VARIOUS TRANSLATORS OF VARIOUS VERSIONS TO CONSCIOUSLY RENDER THE TEXT INACCURATELY
For example, NIV of Psalms 8:5 reads “You have made them[a] a littler lower than the angels and crowned them[c] with glory and honor.
The footnotes read as follow : [a] Or him, Or than God, [c] Or him.
Now the actual Hebrew word “Elohim” אֱלֹהִ֑ים does NOT mean “men” or “Judges” or “angels”, BUT the words “men” or “judges” or “men” have been inserted in the place of "elohim" or “God”.
Even the parsing is incorrect. The NIV Hebrew for “made them a little lower” corresponds to the Hebrew SINGULAR verb that reads, “made HIM (male singular) a little lower…” וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ. The NIV Hebrew for “and crowned them” corresponds to a Hebrew SINGULAR verb “have crowned HIM” תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ (again, male, SINGULAR).
The point here is that whether one uses “Elohim to mean “God” (singular) or “judges" (plural), the context of what is made lower, and what is crowned refers to a singular object, not plural objects. In this case the footnote is more correct than the text. Doug Moos translating team know this. One then needs to ask what the motivation was to render it incorrectly as they did.
IF Elohim means “God” and not “judges” or “angels”, can you not think of a reason that a translator would be uncomfortable to render the translation as “God” and would RATHER render it as almost ANYTHING else other than "God"?
I would expect the logical reply would have been, “Well, the translator might be uncomfortable” translating the sentence as “You made him a little lower than God (or Gods)” since this would have seemed blasphemous and improper to use the word “God” for “Elohim” in this specific instance (whereas it would be fine in other instances….).
Doug Moo was the head of the team that translated the NIV. I expect that their team had the expertise to know that whatever noun the man was made lower than was a singular, whether the noun was “angel” or “judge” or “man” but used “angels” since it would have been very uncomfortable to their theology to render “elohim” as “God” in this instance.
As another example, John 1:18. In Greek the most correct version we have reads : Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. This is the version in the Greek Translators 4th version (GN-4).
It means : “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (ἐξηγήσατο actually means “explained” but in this case, “declared him” or “made him known” is a more comfortable English).
However, The NIV reads, “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
While the NIV is very popular (I use it and LIKE it), it is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, “rendering” of the Greek in this instance. Nowhere in the Greek does it say “who is himself God” and “is in closest relationship with the Father”.
These phrases are completely bogus and represent a contamination of the text with the biases and theology of the translating team members. I think a similar motivation is at work here that was at work at Psalms 8:5, i.e. discomfort with the actual text.
What I think happened is that Doug Moos Group knew the Greek versions that read “monogenes Theos” (only begotten God) in the second phrase was the more correct, but it was an uncomfortable translation to make for their readers (who, in the main, would NOT like the phrase “only begotten God” in the text. Thus I think they tried to create a phrasing that gave some deference to the actual Greek text while trying to keep the translation from any uncomfortable rendering. It is a case of dogma, driving translation due to translator discomfort with accurate translation.
The NWTranslation phrase done by Frederick Franz is actually a correct rendering. “The only begotten God” is the better Greek.
Having said this, I do NOT like Frederick Franzs’ renderings in the main. I think he did a terrible, terrible Job at creating a terrible bible and he corrupted much of the text in his OWN tendency to have his OWN dogma, driving his translation. My point is that he did a good Job on this specific phrase.
In any case, I did not want to encourage you to believe that the NWT is an accurate work, but did not want to engage in the dishonesty of claiming it is ALL a terrible work.
Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in the example I gave) translate incorrectly due to bias.
Luther, for example, left out the second commandment in his earliest version since he didn’t think the second of the ten commandments applied to modern Christians. He was forced by public opinion to add the commandment back into later versions. (This is why the ten commandments were different in protestant and catholic Europe for a time.)
MANY, Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in this case) translate incorrectly due to discomfort with what the original text actually says. This is also why I supported the comments made by @Audie that “Evrrybody "falsifies" the bible.” (Audie in post #7) and @shunyadragon s' point that “From this perspective the Bible has been edited, redacted, and added to, and interpreted in many ways to justify an agenda. The JW is just one more in a long history” (post #9)
I hope your journey is good and wonderful in this life
Clear
σeτωτζω
Last edited:
Bearing in mind that λόγος can be translated not only as 'word' but in a number of other ways, John 1:1 reads ─
Ἐν....ἀρχῇ......ἦν....ὁ...λόγος..καὶ...ὁ...λόγος..ἦν....πρὸς....τὸν.θεόν.καὶ.θεὸς.ἦν...ὁ...λόγος.
At beginning was the word and the word was towards THE god and god was the word.
As you can see, the first mention of god, τὸν θεόν [ton theon, the accusative case of ὁ θεὸς ho theos], is preceded by the definite article τὸν ─ the god, which is the standard Greek expression for 'God' in the NT.At beginning was the word and the word was towards THE god and god was the word.
And the second mention of god, θεὸς [theos], has no definite article. This is how old Greek conveys the sense of our indefinite article, and is correctly translated as 'a god'. (That is, were 'the god' intended, it would be ho theos.)
So there's nothing wrong, or even unusual, with the translation.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
These are actually good verses to explain how God operates....
What happened is that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus like a dove and then God said about Jesus that “this is my Son.”
Put another way, God sent the Holy Spirit to His Son Jesus.
The Baha’i Faith believes in a Trinity, and the detailed explanation is in this chapter: 27: THE TRINITY
Briefly, we believe that there are three separate entities involved: (1) God, (2) the Manifestation of God, and (3) the Holy Spirit, and they work together but they are not all part of God. (The Manifestation of God is also referred to as a Messenger or a Prophet.)
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God. Jesus was a Manifestation of God to whom God sent the Holy Spirit and then Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to Earth.By bringing the Holy Spirit to Earth, Jesus shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things.
God is exalted above anything that can ever be recounted or perceived so never descends to Earth to become a man. Rather, God sends the souls of Manifestations of God such as Jesus from the spiritual world (heaven) and then their souls unite with their bodies at the moment of conception and they are born into a human body.Later, after these men reach a certain age, God sends the Holy Spirit to them as happened to Jesus with the dove. Moses received the Holy Spirit at the Burning Bush, Muhammad received the Holy Spirit from the Angel Gabriel, and Baha’u’llah received the Holy Spirit in the form of a Maiden.When these Manifestations of God receive et the Holy Spirit that is when they start talking about God to their disciples, or in the case of Baha’u’llah, writing things down. Then what they say or write is compiled into religious scriptures that humans can benefit from.
"The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one's preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.
There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.
1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word's function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word's root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.
2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun's case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.
3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").
The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.
The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts."
Sorce: Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I have to say that the explanation given in that chapter you linked is as confusing as every other explanation of the trinity I have heard
And with no reference to where these informations are gained or why one ought to believe it.@tigger2
On the topic of "a God"
Your statements about "a God" are twists and you compare other biblical passages that have nothing to do with the one passage. And claiming that my source is spreading falsehoods is also a lie. I don't think you do understand the Greek language.
On the topic of "God is your throne"
You're not responding to my source at all, instead you discuss with me about some scholars.
I am happy for you if your bible scholars support your opinion, but I can also pick out bible scholars who support my opinion. The link I have linked to you explains everything, provides logical arguments and refutes your Bible scholars.
On the topic of "a God"
Your statements about "a God" are twists and you compare other biblical passages that have nothing to do with the one passage. And claiming that my source is spreading falsehoods is also a lie. I don't think you do understand the Greek language.
On the topic of "God is your throne"
You're not responding to my source at all, instead you discuss with me about some scholars.
I am happy for you if your bible scholars support your opinion, but I can also pick out bible scholars who support my opinion. The link I have linked to you explains everything, provides logical arguments and refutes your Bible scholars.
Last edited:
Spartan
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the JW's revisionist beliefs. Saying Jesus is a created being when the Bible says Jesus created all things (Colossians 1:16 - including principalities) is another one of their remarkable absurdities. Is there anyone other than God who can create all things? No.
First, my interest in John 1 is to find out what the author intended to convey. Accordingly I have no wish or need for him to say any particular thing. Second, in the NT ho theos means the Christian 'God', and theos without the article means 'a god'. In other words, you have no basis for calling the translation you attribute to the JWs a 'lie'. Third, the reason theos and logos are both nominative case is because the verb is eimi. Latin esse does the same.
If you want to prefer another translation because of your personal religious beliefs, that's a matter for you. If you want to abuse the JWs, I guess that's also a matter for you.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I had hoped that my explaining in brief what was in that chapter would help, but.....I have to say that the explanation given in that chapter you linked is as confusing as every other explanation of the trinity I have heard
I can understand why it would be confusing for someone who has no background in the Baha'i Faith....
Now you might understand how confusing the Bible is for someone like me who has no background in Christianity.
The information comes from Baha'u'llah.
Ahm, Jesus creates the universe in Paul and has always lived with God in heaven in John because both Paul and John have a gnostic outlook and regard Jesus as the demiurge. In other words, neither Paul nor the author of John thinks Jesus is God, and each expresses that view clearly. The authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke do not think of their respective Jesuses as the demiurge; but they all agree that Jesus is not God.
That's why nowhere in the NT does Jesus say, 'I am God' (which, if it were true, would be about the most important thing he could possibly say; and if he omitted to say it would be about the grossest of all possible deceits). Instead he says things such as ─
Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”
John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
Paul makes his position clear with eg ─Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”
John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
There are people in Idaho and Indiana etc who hate gays so its not a strictly Southern thing. Interesting question.. I just don't have an answer. IMO its more like religious fascism that just cannot leave other people alone.
yes there is only one God, nobody denies that either. Unfortunately you do not understand the Trinity.
So what?
Jesus was whole God and whole man at the same time. He possessed all the tributes of divinity including omnipotence and omniscience. When Jesus became man, he discarded all his divinity to be recognized as man (Phil 2:5-8). Thats why he did not "know" the day and thats why he did say "No one is good but God alone"
God literally became man.
Yes, Jesus did what his father wanted. Because Jesus is the flesh and his father is the soul. The body obeys the soul.
So what?
So what?
you pick out biblical passages without looking at the entire context. This is wrong and dangerous.
I also notice that you do not understand the Trinity, otherwise you would know that we Christians do not believe in three gods but only in one.