Problems with Jehova's witnesses

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when i was at school, we did not formally learn the rules of grammar, the emphasis was on creativity, to this day, as a consequence, i am a very bad speller and admittedly have scant knowledge of grammar.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
It is never too late to begin to learn English. Never. Moreover, it will help you to read Watchtower publications like Awake! Of course, language competence might cause to read more critically, so a little education could be a very dangerous thing if it leads to from error.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why should i learn English, i am a native speaker,

Originally posted by Wulebgr
...because if you do not know your native language, ...


Given your minimal literacy, any discussions of the errors in JW theology would be a complete waste of time. You are unable to comprehend the arguments. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as yet we are still waiting for you to produce your error

1 ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (New World Translation)

kai ha logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ha logos

is better translated as:

and the word was with God, and God was the word

There is no credible reason for introducing the indefinite article that is found in the NWT. That old guy in my living room attempted to persuade me that Theon and Theos were distinct beings. On the contrary, Theos is God as the subject, Theon is God as the object of a preposition.

Inasmuch as the New World Translation introduces error into John 1.1, a theology built upon a non-existent distinction must be suspect, if not rejected at the outset.

I've been alluding to this error all along, but as I said initially, it is more productive to simply note that you accidentally produced a comic error. Yes, your meaning was clear. However, what you actually wrote had me ROFLMAO!

Originally posted by Wulebgr
1 ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (New World Translation)

kai ha logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ha logos

is better translated as:

and the word was with God, and God was the word

There is no credible reason for introducing the indefinite article that is found in the NWT. That old guy in my living room attempted ed a comic error. Yes, your meaning was clear. However, what you actually wrote had me ROFLMAO!

and for the grammatical argument, have a read at this and see if you are still smiling, i know i shall be.

First, we have to note what Dr. Layton (and others) say about the use of the
Coptic indefinite article and separate it from inferences drawn from it.

1- IF used qualitatively, with John 1:1c as an example, we would have "the
Word was divine."

2- IF used regularly, in the indefinite sense, we would have "the Word was a
god/a God."

3- In neither sense does the Coptic use of the indefinite article 'predicate
equivalence with the proper name God, which is always without exception
supplied with the definite article.'

4- Thus, "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a god" are grammatically
acceptable, whereas "the Word was God" is not, according to the Coptic
construction found at John 1:1c.

However, it is not established by this that the Coptic expression ne.u.noute
at John 1:1c is qualitative, or that any use of noute in the Coptic text of
the NT is qualitative. Dr. Layton gives no examples of a qualitative use of
noute in the Coptic NT.. A qualitative rendering is only offered by Dr.
Layton as a possibility.

According to another Coptic garmmarian, the Sahidic Coptic indefinite
article is used to mark “a non-specific individual or specimen of a class: a
morpheme marking an element as a non-specific or individual or specimen of a class (
“a man,” “other gods,” etc.) -- Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1988), Edited by A. Shisha-
Halevy, Peter Leuven, page 268.

This would also favor the translation "the Word was a god/a God," while not
entirely ruling out the translation "was divine," as referring to 'a
non-specific or individual specimen of a class.'

That the Word is in the divine category is as true if the wording is "a god"
or "divine." The point is simply that "a god/a God" is the literal
translation of what the Coptic text says.

As to whether John 1:18 offers insight on John 1:1c, that is a matter of
exegesis/interpretation, not of grammar. Suffice it to say that it would be
more logical to interpret John 1:18 in light of the introductory verses and John
1:1 instead of the other way around. There are text-critical reasons why
the article is used at John 1:18 that do not exist for John 1:1c, not the least
of which is that the Coptic translators were likely using a Greek text that
read hO MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN... (like the text p75), and translated
accordingly.

Furthermore, not every use of the definite article before the Coptic word
for God refers to GOD; the grammatical rule is simply that if it does refer to
GOD, it must have the definite article. For example, at Acts 7:43 in the
Coptic NT we have the definite article before the Coptic word for God, but it
does not refer to GOD.

In sum, without making this unduly a theological discussion, but a
grammatical one, the Coptic indefinite article, like the English one, usually means
simply "a." A "qualitative" use cannot be ruled out entirely, but it has to be
justified grammatically. And the divinity of the Word is highlighted in
either translation, whether the indefinite one or the "qualitative" one.

Solomon Landers

(http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-July/039198.html)

Dr. Layton explains further:

The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This
pattern predicates either a quality - we'd omit the English article in
English: "is divine" or an entity "is a god"; the reader decides
which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate
equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always
without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an
anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd.3

So, the use of the indefinite article in the Sahidic does not
necessarily mean that the Coptic translator understood John to have
written "a god." He was not equating the Word with the proper name
God, but he could have understood John to be using theos in a
qualitative sense, as many Greek scholars have argued. Dr. Layton says
it is up to the reader to decide, but is there any indication in the
immediate context to help us?

no credible evidence, are you sure you are as educated as you make out?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
1 ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (New World Translation)

kai ha logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ha logos

is better translated as:

and the word was with God, and God was the word

There is no credible reason for introducing the indefinite article that is found in the NWT. That old guy in my living room attempted ...[text shortened]... ed a comic error. Yes, your meaning was clear. However, what you actually wrote had me ROFLMAO!

In the sentence chalepa ta kala, the verb esti is omitted (neuter plurals take a singular verb), in the short proverbial statement. The article and adjective (ta kala) are used as a noun. Note that although the word order does not which of the adjectives is the subject and which the predicative nominative adjective, we can tell that the sentence means the good things are hard, rather than hard things are good, because the subject is usually accompanied by the article, the predicate rarely so.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
1 ... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (New World Translation)

kai ha logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ha logos

is better translated as:

and the word was with God, and God was the word

There is no credible reason for introducing the indefinite article that is found in the NWT. That old guy in my living room attempted ...[text shortened]... ed a comic error. Yes, your meaning was clear. However, what you actually wrote had me ROFLMAO!

Originally posted by JohnOneOne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god"😉 often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or s ...[text shortened]... om

Agape, JohnOneOne.
john1one@earthlink.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally posted by JohnOneOne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god"😉 often miss the point that the structure of this whole clause is that it is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun (meaning, without the Greek definite article), but one which is also *preceding the verb and subject noun (implied or s ...[text shortened]... om

Agape, JohnOneOne.
john1one@earthlink.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While ya'll are copying and pasting things that you either fail to comprehend or that you are deliberately misrepresenting, go ahead and read the whole article by Harner. Here's an excerpt to show how you have twisted words of scholars like him to mean the opposite of what they argued.

Journal Of Biblical Literature: Philip Harner: Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns
(Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85)

In light of this examination of John's usage we may turn to the verse in which we are especially interested, 1: 1. Our study so far suggests that the anarthrous predicate in this verse has primarily a qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or context. As an aid in understanding the verse it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:

* A. ο θεος εν λογος/ho logos en ho theos
* B. θεος εν ο λογος/ theos en ho logos [what John actually wrote]
* C. ο λογος θεος εν/ho logos theos en
* D. ο λογος εν θεος εν/ho logos en theos
* E. ο λογος εν θειος/ho logos en theios [see footnote 24]

Footnote 24: ["The word theios appears only a few times in the NT: Acts 17:27 (v. 1.), 29; Tit 1:9 (v. 1); 2 Pet 1:3, 4. It is not used in the Fourth Gospel. But presumably John could have used it, or some other word meaning "divine," if he had wished to do so.]

Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1: 1, in which John writes that ho logos 'nv theos. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two. Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos.

John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1.

As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would implying B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.

Commentators on the Fourth Gospel, as far as I know, have not specifically approached the meaning of this clause from the standpoint of the qualitative force of theos as an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb. In many cases their interpretations agree with the explanation that is given above. But consideration of the qualitative meaning of theos would lend further clarification and support to their understanding of the clause. J. H. Bernard, for example, points out that Codex L reads ho theos instead of theos. "But this," he continues, "would identify the Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the preceding clause. [J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (New York: Scribner, 1929) 1, 2.] In a similar way W. F. Howard writes that theos and ho logos are not interchangeable. Otherwise, he continues, "the writer could not say 'the Word was with God.' [W. F. Howard, The Gospel according to St. John (IB 8; New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury. 1952) 464.] Both writers, in effect, are arguing that the predicate theos cannot be regarded as definite in this clause. In terms of our analysis above this would mean that clause B should not be assimilated to clause A.

Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause succinctly and lucidly: "The Word IS divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine Person. [B. Vawter, The Gospel according to John (JBC; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1968) 422.] But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the phrase "the Word is divine" as an attempt to represent the meaning of clause B rather than D or E. Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word IS "divine" in the same sense that ho theos IS divine. But the English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents.

In his discussion of this clause R. E. Brown regards the translation "the Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christian reader whose Trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of 'God' as a larger concept than 'God the Father.' [R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I-XII (AB 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) 5.]

Yet he also finds it significant that theos is anarthrous. Later he adds, "In vs. Ic the johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense. [Brown, John, I-XII, 24.] In terms of our analysis above, Brown is arguing in effect that clause B should be differentiated from A, on the one hand, and D and E on the other . [Brown (John, I-XII, 25) also mentions the view of De Ausejo that throughout the prologue the term "Word" means Jesus Christ, the Word-become-flesh. "If this is so," he comments, "then perhaps there is justification for seeing in the use of the anarthrous theos something more humble than the use of ho theos for the Father." But if theos is qualitative in force, it is not contrasted directly with ho theos John evidently wished to say that the logos was no less than theos, just as ho theos (by implication) had the nature of theos.]

Rudolf Bultmann's explanation of the clause also reflects an appreciation of the qualitative force of theos without specifically recognizing it as such. The clause means first, he suggests, that the Logos is equated (gleichgesetzt) with God; "er WAR Gott, [he WAS God]." [R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium der Johannes (Meyer 2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 16.] Bultmann means by this that we must not think in terms of two divine beings, in a polytheistic or gnostic sense. [Bultmann, Johannes, 16-17.] Thus he guards against assimilating clause B to D or E. But he explains further that this equation between the two is not a simple identification (einfache Identifikation), because the Logos was pros ton theon. [Bultmann, Johannes, 17.] In this way he guards against assimilating B to clause A. Bultmann's interpretive instinct at this point is unquestionably sound. In terms of the analysis that we have proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos would remove some ambiguity in his interpretation by differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared with God, and ho theos as the "person" to whom the Logos stood in relation. Only when this distinction is clear can we say of the Logos that "he WAS God."

These examples illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, "the Word WAS God." The New English Bible has, "what God WAS, the Word WAS ." Good News for Modern Man has, "he WAS the same as God." The problem with all of these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express. Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.

At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually- exclusive, ] and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present study has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39, I would regard the qualitative emphasis as prim...

Originally posted by Wulebgr
While ya'll are copying and pasting things that you either fail to comprehend or that you are deliberately misrepresenting, go ahead and read the whole article by Harner. Here's an excerpt to show how you have twisted words of scholars like him to mean the opposite of what they argued.

Journal Of Biblical Literature: Philip Harner: Qualitative Anarthrous ard the qualitative emphasis as prim...

Originally posted by Wulebgr
While ya'll are copying and pasting things that you either fail to comprehend or that you are deliberately misrepresenting, go ahead and read the whole article by Harner. Here's an excerpt to show how you have twisted words of scholars like him to mean the opposite of what they argued.

Journal Of Biblical Literature: Philip Harner: Qualitative Anarthrous ard the qualitative emphasis as prim...