Zone1 "And the Word was [a] god," a simple, unjustified translation error by JW

[hadit]

Quick question.....how could Jesus then refer constantly to a "father"??...not arguing with you but I do have some familiarity with the the subject.

Because He VOLUNTARILY takes a secondary role to the Father. Think of it this way, I voluntarily grant my boss at work authority to direct what I do and when I do it, but we are both equal human beings with the same autonomy over our lives. Scripture tells us that Jesus temporarily gave up His standing as equal with God but didn't think there was anything wrong with being such.

 

[kjw47]

Thought I'd give people a simple tool to address the JW who believe that the Bible says that the Word, that is, Jesus, was not God, but just a god. Their New World study bible says in John 1:1c "and the Word was a god." Why? Is there a possible justification for putting in the indefinite article "a" before "God" to remove Jesus from the Godhead? To the average American Christian, there could be, and the JWs like to prey on the general ignorance of the Bible. However, there is a very simple way to prove that the indefinite article does not belong there.

Before I do, the JWs like to say that the indefinite article does belong because the Koine Greek doesn't really use indefinite articles, instead allowing them to be implied. Fair enough. After all, John 1:6 has an implied indefinite article when referencing the introduction of John the Baptist. So why not in John 1:1c to fit the belief that Jesus is not the 2nd Person of God, but Michael?

First, let's look at the immediate context, with the section in question removed:


John sure is taking great pains to describe Him as existing alongside God before Creation and being responsible for all Creation. If the Word is not God, then it will require some great rhetorical flourishes and long essays to prove it in light of this short passage. What John is doing is equivocating the Word and God, assigning them status as prior to Creation and Time, so saying "and the Word was God" makes the most sense.

But as we know, the broader context is the whole Bible. So where else do we find a similar passage? Why, in the beginning, of course! Genesis 1:1, likewise, says "In the beginning..." In the beginning...what? "...GOD created..." Oh? But John said that all things were created through the Word! I'm sure that JWs would claim that since John doesn't expressly say that the Word created everything, that the Word therefore isn't necessarily God, but the vessel by which God created everything else. However, how can that be when John says that nothing was made without the Word being directly involved? If the Word is created, then without the Word something was made that was made. Thus, the Word MUST be an uncreated creator. Genesis 1:1 says that God is the uncreated creator, therefore, the Word, who is Jesus, is God.

20 translations in history has a god at John 1:1=Why? Because in the Greek lexicons there are 2 spots where 2 are called God-god--John 1:1, 2 Cor 4:4-- In both spots the true God is called Ton Theon= God, both others are called Theos=god when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon.
Its your religions that erred. This is 100% fact of reality.

 

[hadit]

20 translations in history has a god at John 1:1=Why? Because in the Greek lexicons there are 2 spots where 2 are called God-god--John 1:1, 2 Cor 4:4-- In both spots the true God is called Ton Theon= God, both others are called Theos=god when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon.
Its your religions that erred. This is 100% fact of reality.

Have you seen where I showed from YOUR OWN version of the Bible that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, and to deny it is to call Him a liar?

 

[kjw47]

Have you seen where I showed from YOUR OWN version of the Bible that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, and to deny it is to call Him a liar?

The bible would have lied if that were what he meant. God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus words have alternate meaning.

 

[hadit]

The bible would have lied if that were what he meant. God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus words have alternate meaning.

What is the alternate meaning? Go over to that other thread and answer my post. I quote from your version of the Bible, so you're going to have to say why it is lying.

 

[kjw47]

What is the alternate meaning? Go over to that other thread and answer my post. I quote from your version of the Bible, so you're going to have to say why it is lying.

By Jesus' successful completion of what he came to earth for( ransom sacrifice) in a sense gave him the right to be raised from the dead. If he failed, he wouldn't have that right. But the bible is 100% clear-God raised him from the dead.

 

[hadit]

By Jesus' successful completion of what he came to earth for( ransom sacrifice) in a sense gave him the right to be raised from the dead. If he failed, he wouldn't have that right. But the bible is 100% clear-God raised him from the dead.

The Bible CLEARLY states that Jesus said He would raise Himself from the dead. Remember, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days"? So, yes, God DID raise Him from the dead. All three persons were involved in the ultimate moment for mankind. You know, don't you, that you didn't actually address what I posted, just some random stuff? I posted directly from your own version of the Bible, so you can't say it was an altered translation or any of the other stuff you try to hide behind. That's why you're forced to come up with some alternate idea of what it means.

 

[kjw47]

The Bible CLEARLY states that Jesus said He would raise Himself from the dead. Remember, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days"? So, yes, God DID raise Him from the dead. All three persons were involved in the ultimate moment for mankind. You know, don't you, that you didn't actually address what I posted, just some random stuff? I posted directly from your own version of the Bible, so you can't say it was an altered translation or any of the other stuff you try to hide behind. That's why you're forced to come up with some alternate idea of what it means.

I know what the bible says--100% fact-Jesus was dead for 3 days. God raised from the dead-end of story.

 

[hadit]

I know what the bible says--100% fact-Jesus was dead for 3 days. God raised from the dead-end of story.

The Bible ALSO says that Jesus said He would raise Himself from the dead. Why are you denying that? Are you saying your version of the Bible is lying, or are you saying that Jesus was lying, and that the disciples believed the lies? Deal with what your Bible says, and don't try that old, "He meant something else" routine. You didn't even bother to say what else Jesus could have meant.

 

[kjw47]

Thought I'd give people a simple tool to address the JW who believe that the Bible says that the Word, that is, Jesus, was not God, but just a god. Their New World study bible says in John 1:1c "and the Word was a god." Why? Is there a possible justification for putting in the indefinite article "a" before "God" to remove Jesus from the Godhead? To the average American Christian, there could be, and the JWs like to prey on the general ignorance of the Bible. However, there is a very simple way to prove that the indefinite article does not belong there.

Before I do, the JWs like to say that the indefinite article does belong because the Koine Greek doesn't really use indefinite articles, instead allowing them to be implied. Fair enough. After all, John 1:6 has an implied indefinite article when referencing the introduction of John the Baptist. So why not in John 1:1c to fit the belief that Jesus is not the 2nd Person of God, but Michael?

First, let's look at the immediate context, with the section in question removed:


John sure is taking great pains to describe Him as existing alongside God before Creation and being responsible for all Creation. If the Word is not God, then it will require some great rhetorical flourishes and long essays to prove it in light of this short passage. What John is doing is equivocating the Word and God, assigning them status as prior to Creation and Time, so saying "and the Word was God" makes the most sense.

But as we know, the broader context is the whole Bible. So where else do we find a similar passage? Why, in the beginning, of course! Genesis 1:1, likewise, says "In the beginning..." In the beginning...what? "...GOD created..." Oh? But John said that all things were created through the Word! I'm sure that JWs would claim that since John doesn't expressly say that the Word created everything, that the Word therefore isn't necessarily God, but the vessel by which God created everything else. However, how can that be when John says that nothing was made without the Word being directly involved? If the Word is created, then without the Word something was made that was made. Thus, the Word MUST be an uncreated creator. Genesis 1:1 says that God is the uncreated creator, therefore, the Word, who is Jesus, is God.

Every bible scholar on earth knows 100%. At John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4- The true God called Ton Theon=God, both the word and satan called Theos= god when in the same paragraph with Ton Theon. Translating is the same at both spots. So either satan is God and the word is God or satan is god and the word is god. We all know 100% satan is not God so either is the word.
The liars refuse to tell truth because it exposes hundreds of religions claiming to be Christian as false religion-they all lose their jobs. Billions of tax free dollars lost every single year, plus 2 billion humans suing them because they do know they are lying.
Its the real reason why there has been at least 20 translations in history by unbias Greek scholars who had a god at John 1:1.