The more 'current' translations are based upon better, more reliable Greek and Hebrew MS than were available. As I said before, we can go to those documents.
RE: Trinity bias - Funny thing, from The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981 - it state ""From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago...
What were they teaching in 1881 - oh YES, the Trinity. So when you let the scriptures speak for them selves, they support the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, should you desire, we can see how the NWT has been mistranslated in key locations in order to impose JW doctrine. Are you up for that?
What's the excuse for not using the indefinite article ("a"), and just using "God" in John 1:1?
Simple answer - it is not necessary. Other NT passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered “God”: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos (“the God”) to theos (“God”) never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11. In context, the preincarnate Christ (called “the Word”) is eternal (existing before creation, 1:1-2), is credited with creation (1:3, 10), is the object of faith (1:12), and has the divine glory (1:14)—all of which shows that he really is God.
In Mark 6:49, Mark 11:32, John 4:19, John 6:70, John 8:44, John 9:17, John 10:1, 13, 33, John 12:6 translators put
That is where your problem lies FOE, TRANSLATORS add articles for clarity. Having checked your 'proof' texts only goes to prove my point. So lets add some more pertinent texts, ones that include theo shall we IN similar context-
- JOHN 1:6:“There came a man, sent from a God.…”
· JOHN 1:18: “No man has seen a God at any time.…”
· MATTHEW 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of a God.”
Guess what FOE, even the NWT doesn't follow your argument for an indefinite article in these verses. Dozens or real Greek scholars have refuted JW's NWT translation on this point alone.
I believe it is done for same reason that most of the newest English revisions have taken the name Jehovah (or Yahweh, if you prefer) completely out of the Bible. To minimize God's name and to confuse the issue.
Red herring - the tetragramaton is still present in the Hebrew MS and its equivalent is present in the Greek. You'd do well to answer my harder questions to you.
First of all, that publication is a 32 page brochure. I don't think it was from there, I think it was from other reference material from The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
The page citation is from EGT, not the tract.
But then they go on to say that Paul WAS making a statement about Christ's nature in relationship to God.
Unfortunately the greek font didn't transfer too well. You have a tendency to understate, and Kennedy would strongly disagree with JW application of his commentary on Phil 2. Kennedy's assessment is that the text of Phil 2:6-10 clearly portrays Jesus as deity (uncreated God.) Kennedy's interpretation is summed up in our paraphrase: "Although Jesus while he walked the earth, knew he had existed before all time as uncreated God, He did not violently force [active har·pa'zo] men to accept his equality with God with the use of his inherent divine powers. Instead, he chose the path of humility that lead first to death, then to being proclaimed worthy of worship after the resurrection and exhalation by God to possess a name among men equal to Jehovah of the Old Testament.
I didn't expand the Greek in the "buying and selling" response because of time constraints. I gave the scripture citation, Matthew 21:12. But you didn't provide any proof that I was wrong.
I had to laugh when I read it. Buyers and sellers two different groups? Show me where some didn't do both. LOL, they were a common group of sinners. But since we are dealing with conjunctions lets look at something more applicable, since YOUR text is dealing a group of people, whereas here it dealing with one specific person. 2 Pet. 1:1 uses same construction here as in Titus 2:13 - Sharp’s first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated “our great God and Savior” . But there are other parallels too:
2Pe 3:18* But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
So tell me, how many groups are we dealing with here? Are some "Lord" and others "Saviour"? Same construct as the verse in question
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Instead of debating the meaning of Biblical Koine Greek words and phrases, how about we look at the clear message Jesus presented in the Bible?
OK, especially since you are striking out with Watchtower cookie cutter attacks on the greek.
Why would Jesus not make it plain that he and Jehovah are equal, or explain that they and the Holy Spirit exist as part of the same being? The truth of Jesus' nature is made clear by his own statements.
Matthew 20:23(not mine to give,...prepared by my Father); Matthew 12:31, 32(only blasphemy against Spirit unforgivable [coequal?]); John 5:19, 30(cannot do a single thing of my own initiative); John 7:28, 8:28, 42(not of his own initiative); John 14:28 (Father is greater than I am); John 17:3([in prayer to Father] you, the only true God) After Jesus' resurrection, he was still in an inferior position to the Father - 1 Cor 11:3 (the head of Christ is God); 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 (Son will subject himself to God); 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 3:12 (Jesus spoke of the Father as his God. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being the Father's or Jehovah's God); Acts 7:56 (Son of man was standing seperate, at God's right hand. Where was the Holy Spirit?)
What we have here is a gross lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity - seen only through the prejudiced eyes of Watchtower Inc. The doctrine of the Trinity RECOGNIZES that the different members of the Trinity relate with each other and there is an order and unity of what they do. I pointed out in previous posts that the appearance of subordination does not imply a 'lesser' personage. The verses you cite support the understanding of that portion of the doctrine. Secondly is the classical misrepresentation of how the human Jesus also had to relate to God the Father and Holy Spirit as well. Here is the truth of Jesus' nature that was made very clear to those listening -
Jn 8.58-59: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him--Notice: This statement actually goes beyond pre-existence--it is an explicit claim to be YHWH. The "I am" phrase is how the OT LXX translators render the Hebrew "I AM" of Ex 3.14. This "I am" statement (which also occurs in vv. 24, 28 of this chapter!) of Jesus is immediately understood by the natives, who pick up stones to execute the proper sentence for blasphemy (Lev 24.16). BTW, if you want to go down trying to defend JW translation of ERGO IMI, be my guest, better have your Greek and Hebrew up. (Please don't throw me into the briar patch, oh please)
And again - Jn 10.30-39: I and the Father are one." 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
Jn 15.26: "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.--Jesus will SEND the Holy Spirit, which will testify about Jesus. This ONLY makes sense if Jesus is on a parity with the Father and the Spirit.
There are plenty more throughout the rest of John as well as the synoptics, but we only have so much space here.
If Christ is to be worshipped now, when is the Holy Spirit going to get his turn to be worshipped? Where are the texts showing the Holy Spirit's equality with the Father, or with Jesus?
Matt. 28:19 is one of the clearest showing equality among the Persons of the Trinity.
2Cr 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. - Here the Spirit receives the same title as Jesus and the Father - that reserved for God.
The fact is that the Trinity doctrine was added after the early Christian congregation had experienced the foretold apostacy, and is at least partially influenced by Greek philosophy.
LOL, the infamous coup de gra. Sorry FOE, doesn't wash, especially without documentation. You'll have to leg wrestle with mormons over the claim to have restored the gospel. It is clear that Mt 28 invokes the Trinitarian formula when written by about AD 65 - are you saying that is when the apostasy occurred? Ignatius prior to his execution at Rome on December 20th, A.D. 107 espoused the doctrine of the Trinity. Justin Martyr (AD 165), Irenaeus (AD 200), Clement of Alexandria (AD 215), Tertullian (AD 230), Hippolytus (AD 235), and Origen (AD 250) all taught the Trinity (Oh BTW, please don't try to cite the JW partial quotes from these either - save yourself embarrassment) . Greek philosophy LOL, that was based upon polytheism, you really don't want to go down that road either.
Godzilla,
Very concise refutation and discourse about Christ’s divinity and the trinity.
Our cult-friendly poster would do well to brush up on Greek -
particularly Granville Sharp’s rule of grammar.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/granville_sharpe.htm
The truth is, Jehovah’s Witnesses are slaves to the teaching of the Watchtower (which is guided by “angels” :-) and must accept what is taught to them, which they teach to others. In short, they don’t know. Nor are they allowed to read those things or fellowship with those who believe differently. Heck, they can’t even honor their mother on Mother’s Day!
Anyway, good job with delineating the details in a concise and understandable way.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are henotheistic, just like mormons and other pagan groups.
best,
ampu
Looks like I will have to revise my earlier posting:
If facts mattered, there would be no Later Day Saints...
...or Jehovah's Witnesses...
As for the witnesses teaching the Trinity in 1881, they had just come out of the mainstream churches that taught the Trinity. They wanted to study the scriptures without any bias, and in covering subject by subject, the Trinity doctrine didn't hold up.
They also celebrated Christmas, and other celebrations with false or dubious backgrounds, which is not done now.
As I have stated before, I don't have the time to make a point by point refutation of everything.
The reason I have been continuing until now is that I know that if I suddenly stop responding, you or another here will declare victory and say that I couldn't refute you.
This will happen anyway, but let it be known that I have been taking time away from other necessary things to respond here.
I am on FR to read interesting and funny articles. I have never devoted this much time to reading or writing responses, because I do not have that much to devote.
Apparently you do, and hey, that's great.
I have been trying to tell you all along that I don't.
If/when I have time later, I'll get to the other points you mentioned, such as the 65AD thing, which is ridiculous.
You know full well that the EARLIEST surviving fragments from ANY of the NT are from around AD 125 - 160. The writing in 65AD, sure, but what original texts are these versions from? The Sahidic Coptic text have a similar structure to English, and they include the indefinite article in John 1:1. They were translated before the official adoption of the Trinity. In part, that is what i was making reference to.
Have a good day.