Pantera

By a happy coincidence CowboyX and others offered us some thoughts on the JW treatment of John 1:1 a couple of days ago in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000076" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

excreationist

About the Saducees and the afterlife - after more discussion at <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000476" target="_blank">BaptistBoard.com</a>, I found out that angels are mentioned a lot in the Torah and can't always be human messengers or God himself. (see <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=angel&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&rest rict=Books+of+Moses&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&la nguage=english" target="_blank">search for "angel"</a>)

As that Bible dictionary says, the Sadducess accepted "...the permanent validity only of the written laws of the Pentateuch [first five books/Torah]".

This could imply that they were skeptical about the truth of the stories in the Torah. This would explain why the Sadducees apparently didn't believe in angels.

At least some of the Torah wasn't written by Moses. (About his own death Deuteronomy 34:5)
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3745.asp" target="_blank">AiG - About Moses's authorship</a>.
It seems that the Torah does claim that Moses wrote things down, including the laws, but this doesn't mean he wrote the narrative behind it all. He is referred to from a third person perspective.

So anyway, the Torah contains the Laws that were given to Moses. The Sadducees would see that as being for God but they seemed to have been skeptical about the rest of the Torah. (Like how liberal ministers can agree with the main message of the Bible, but doubt the historical accuracy of a lot of it)

Maybe the Sadducees thought that the narratives in the Torah had been greatly embellished (which I think they were). It makes sense that the those who would know the most about what really happened are skeptical about the existence of things like angels.

HelenM

Don, I can't assess which is a more accurate rendering of the Greek since I know little about that.

If your point is that it's illogical to say the Word is both with God and also God, then, I see what you are saying. However, that's exactly the same type of 'lack of logic' as in the belief in the Trinity, that Jesus is both God and the Son of God; Jesus is fully God and yet Jesus is not God the Father or the Holy Spirit; they are distinct.

So it does not surprise me that believers in the Trinity have no problem with the "Word is God" translation of this verse. In fact, as I have mentioned, it's one of the few verses which seems to support belief in the Trinity in a relatively overt way. The other few seem mostly to have textual variants which do not affirm Jesus is God. That could be because this very topic is such a key one and therefore either some people added Trinitarian statements; or others took them out.

Who knows...but what I was saying is that once you are willing to accept the Trinity, which doesn't meet the normal rules of logic, a verse that says both "the Word was with God" and "the Word was God" is no problem and in fact is a helpful thing.

Thanks for the link, Pantera - especially since I was interested to find that the NIV/TNIV is being discussed here (the original topic of the thread to which you linked ).

love
Helen

Amos

The Word was God in "Then God said . . . etc."

In Gen 2 Lord God formed that which God had created in Gen.1.

It affirms the intelligent design in which "essence precedes existence" which was true 6000 years ago and as still true today.

xoc

The only problem is, that every other time "ton Theon" (the right article I think) is used in the gospels they translate it as "God." It's only the verse that would affirm the "Godhood" of the Word that they chose to translate in that way. It's also clearly in violation of the first commandment, to have a "god" before God. The Trinitarian position, while confusing, doesn't fall into this problem.

The JWs also translate Jesus' statement "I tell you the truth, Today you shall be with me in Paradise." as "I tell you the truth today, you shall be with me in Paradise." to escape the troubling inference from the statement. (certainly seems contradictory to agelong soul-sleep and suggests the "soul entering" paradise posthaste) But compare this with every other time Jesus said "I tell you the truth" (and there's a lot of them). He never used the word "Today" before, which is such a redundant addition anyway. Although it's possible that it could be translated as "I tell you the truth today" it is not the best way to translate it in comparison to the other uses of "I tell you the truth." However it certainly makes it more compatable with a theological preset.

Haran

The actual quote from the New World Translation (NWT) is: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (my emphasis added)

Here is the Greek for that last phrase: "KAI (and) QEOS (God - predicate) HN (was) hO LOGOS (the word - subject)".

Since there is no definite article ("the") before God "QEOS" in the phrase, the NWT translates it as indefinite ("a God"). This might seem to make sense, however...

As Daniel Wallace mentions in his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310218950/qid=1014089812/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_3_1/104-8669314-1809532" target="_blank">Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics</a>: "The grammatical argument that the PN (Predicate Nominative) here is indefinite is weak.".

He goes on to say the following:

Oh well, there's more in the book, but I'll spare you. I think the above is a pretty good examination of the problem.

I probably shouldn't even mention it because I'm not completely sure of its truth, but I've heard that there are court records showing that the translators were severely lacking in knowledge of the original languages... Perhaps someone else can substantiate or "knock down" this claim.

Thanks,
Haran

-DM-

Helen:

I'm not supporting what the JWs profess, I'm just pointing out that if you look into their arguments for their rendering of JN 1:1-2, then you will see that they have some pretty good reasons for rendering it the way that they do. In any case, it isn't really my point but their point.

---------

Amos:

What you don't say is not obviously what you don't mean -- although it obviously has nothing more or less than meaning -- and what you do say is not obviously not as meaningful as what you don't say, therefore (or not), nothing which you say provides more than no evidence for intelligent design nor less than some evidence for unintelligent design. That being said, you must remember that it was an elevated state of mind in which the author of John 1.1 was operating and that we have now is only a remnant of that elevated state of mind, which remnant remains for us to contemplate and misunderstand, if at all possible.

Further, if "God" in this sense is an elevated state of mind, then the "Word" which was "God" and was with "God" and was "God" must also be a state of mind, elevated or not, and this is not unlikely the significance of JN 1.1-2, in which case we might be remiss were we not to assume that the author of John was likely receiving a light flash in his pleasure centre and would now be jumping for joy at the thought that others might also -- were it not for the fact that he is physically dead although metaphysically alive. Of course all of this represents right brain phenomena, thus placing this whole business of whether Jesus is or was or is not or was not a "God" or "co-God" on a kind of simulated spurious slippery slope -- unless, of course, it is juxtaposed with a beatific vision, in which case it could be somewhat less spurious if not less slippery when seen in that light.

If, on the other hand, this was not related to the idle spot in the centre of our lymbic system, it must be literally true that one Mormon I know insists that John is still alive (thus upholding that Jesus would return before all those who heard him would taste death), being a regular visitor in the Mormon Temple in Bellevue, Washington. Certainly this is a true beatific picture.

---------

XOC

Regarding having a god before "God," this is, of course, one of the very points which the JWs make, namely that Christians have a god in Jesus, thus worshipping at least two gods (and three gods if the Holy Spirit is included in the Godhead). Thus the JWs seem to see themselves as true monotheists. (BUt remember, these are their points not my points.)

I agree that it would be redundant to say, "I tell you this today." To me, that is one of the stronger points against their placement of the comma in LK 23:43.

Regarding theological presets, the same could be said with regard to Christian dogma in terms of Bible translations, the Trinity concept having been made official dogma at the first Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., long before the printing of the first Bibles.

Regards,
--Don--

Haran

Don, if you still believe that the JWs "have some pretty good reasons for rendering it [i.e. John 1:1] the way they do", then you might re-read my above post and continue to Michael's excellent response to my above post on the thread entitled <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000106" target="_blank"> For Haran: New World Translators' Incompetence</a>.

Respectfully,
Haran

-DM-

I have already done that. My opinion is unchanged.

--Don--