The New World Translation does not change John 1:1

[EastwardTraveler]

Here is a thread I started on another forum, but wanted to put it up here as well. I am new here, but I am already enjoying this forum much better. Less trolls and better discussion and attitudes.
*********************************************

This is a response to a tread about John 1:1 and how the New World Translation corrects this mistake about calling the Word "God". The NWT claims to fix this issue by calling the Word "a god". Next the assertion is there are many gods in the Bible and being a god is different than being God, implying that God is not a god. Being a god is said to be more of a title or status, and nothing could be further from the truth.

First there is a word play here does not exist in the Hebrew. There is no capitalization in Hebrew, so in English terms, there is no big or little g. The context of the scripture would have let the reader know which god is being talked about. Even from a grammatical point of view this changes nothing. Here is what I mean. It is grammatically correct and scripturally correct for me to say that "God is a god". God is just a proper pronoun letting us know which god we are talking about. A god is not a status but the nature of something. God is a god because he happens to be a spiritually divine being.

So changing John 1:1 does not change the problem of the Word being called God. You are still left with a big problem of the identity of Jesus if he was by nature an elohim.

The next tactic that will be used to to bring up that there are many gods in the Bible. This is a silly argument, because all of the other gods of the Bible are false gods or men calling themselves gods. Neither of the two pleases God, so I find it odd that this is used to justify the Word being called a god/elohim and he not be God. Lets break it down even further. Just because men made up gods and created images to them, does not make them a real god. Same if a man calls himself or another person a god, it does not make them a true god. Again this does not please God to do so.

Here is my beleif, that God/elohim is the only real god/elohim in the scriptures. All other gods/elohim are false gods/elohim. No where in scripture is it a good thing to be call a god/elohim if the thing being talked about is not God himself.

While I started off mentioning The NWT I am eager to hear from all who do not believe that Jesus is God, not just Jehovahs Witness. I prefer not to hear from Trinitarians and Unitarians on this post, but ultimately am not opposed to it.

My last request is that for those responding, try and keep it short. I do not want a page of verses quoted and a dissertation on each on. Lets try and keep it to a verse or two at a time so we can actually have a discussion that is meaningful.

Thanks and look forward to hearing from all of you out there.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to TripleZ]

I did not say you could not post, just that I prefered to hear from the other side. I have every right to ask for such just as you have every right on here to ignore it. No hard fellings either way.

[Donray]

I don't understand all the debate about what something in the bible says. First off, we have no idea how wrote John and in what language. So, since we don't have an original script we don't know what the author wrote.

The best we have is something that went through many manual copying with possible changes in each copy.

For all anyone knows John1:1 was not even in the original.

Why all the argument over grammar when there is no original to say what the original author wrote?

[101G]

Here is a thread I started on another forum, but wanted to put it up here as well. I am new here, but I am already enjoying this forum much better. Less trolls and better discussion and attitudes.
*********************************************

This is a response to a tread about John 1:1 and how the New World Translation corrects this mistake about calling the Word "God". The NWT claims to fix this issue by calling the Word "a god". Next the assertion is there are many gods in the Bible and being a god is different than being God, implying that God is not a god. Being a god is said to be more of a title or status, and nothing could be further from the truth.

First there is a word play here does not exist in the Hebrew. There is no capitalization in Hebrew, so in English terms, there is no big or little g. The context of the scripture would have let the reader know which god is being talked about. Even from a grammatical point of view this changes nothing. Here is what I mean. It is grammatically correct and scripturally correct for me to say that "God is a god". God is just a proper pronoun letting us know which god we are talking about. A god is not a status but the nature of something. God is a god because he happens to be a spiritually divine being.

So changing John 1:1 does not change the problem of the Word being called God. You are still left with a big problem of the identity of Jesus if he was by nature an elohim.

The next tactic that will be used to to bring up that there are many gods in the Bible. This is a silly argument, because all of the other gods of the Bible are false gods or men calling themselves gods. Neither of the two pleases God, so I find it odd that this is used to justify the Word being called a god/elohim and he not be God. Lets break it down even further. Just because men made up gods and created images to them, does not make them a real god. Same if a man calls himself or another person a god, it does not make them a true god. Again this does not please God to do so.

Here is my beleif, that God/elohim is the only real god/elohim in the scriptures. All other gods/elohim are false gods/elohim. No where in scripture is it a good thing to be call a god/elohim if the thing being talked about is not God himself.

While I started off mentioning The NWT I am eager to hear from all who do not believe that Jesus is God, not just Jehovahs Witness. I prefer not to hear from Trinitarians and Unitarians on this post, but ultimately am not opposed to it.

My last request is that for those responding, try and keep it short. I do not want a page of verses quoted and a dissertation on each on. Lets try and keep it to a verse or two at a time so we can actually have a discussion that is meaningful.

Thanks and look forward to hearing from all of you out there.

Addressing the OP only.

John 1:1c in the NWT stand in contrast as to who Jehovah/the word (the Lord Jesus) is. for if the Word is the Lord Jesus, as per said in John 1:1b, then the NWT has a big problem when it renders Jesus (the Word) as a god, lower case "g" in god. because in revelation 22:6 when the angel tells John who sent him, (in reference to Rev 1:1) the NWT says it's Jehovah who sent his angel. but in the same chapter, 22 at verse 16 the NWT turns and says that it is Jesus who sent his angel. so either the NWT is incorrect here in Revelation 22:6 and 22:16, or it's incorrect about John 1:1c., take your pick.

Peace in Christ Yeshua.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to 101G]

So is the problem strictly in Revelation pertaining to who sent the angel, or is there another line of logic that I am not following in connection with the word elohim? Not saying I agree or disagree, but my focus in this thread is only on the meaning of that word. So help me a little better in connecting the two if you do not mind.

[Donray]

http://jehovah.to/exe/translation/coptic.pdf

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to Donray]

Thanks much. Ill read and respond

[101G]

[Replying to 101G]

So is the problem strictly in Revelation pertaining to who sent the angel, or is there another line of logic that I am not following in connection with the word elohim? Not saying I agree or disagree, but my focus in this thread is only on the meaning of that word. So help me a little better in connecting the two if you do not mind.

sure, and thanks for the response.

here is the reasoning. the angel in Revelation said the "Lord God" of the holy prophets sent him, Revelation 22:6 "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done".

clearly the angel is saying the God of the OT as well as the NT sent him. I have had scholars from all doctoral beliefs with PHD's say that it was Yahweh, or Jehovah who sent his angel to John. and even the JW witness have it in print that Jehovah sent his angel to John.

well all, including the NWT was found to be in error. because in the same chapter at verse 16 it states who sent "his" angel. Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star".

I can't see how the JW let something like that slip pass their scholars and put it in writing.

this is how one expose false doctrine. because many say JESUS is not Yahweh, or Jehovah as they believe. and when this is pointed out to them they are in shock.

and these are people with phd's highly educated.

but the NWT put it in print. well I have to give them credit, at least they are bold, but in error as two left shoes.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 106 by 101G]

Ok, I am following your line of thought now and I thought that was where you were going with this. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt missing a connection between John 1 and Revelation. While you have an interesting arguement, I do not see the connection it has in relation to John and the word "elohim" and its meaning. I believe your point, and this will be a JW's answer to this, is a problem of agency. A contradiction or preceived one in Revelation is the focus, not on how the word elohim is used.
I am not saying I disagree with you but I am strictly focusing on the word elohim/theos/god. Maybe I will start another thread on this to go back and forth with you on this in detail. I'll let you decide.

[2timothy316]

[101G]