The definite article and Jehovah's witnesses part 1

[sweetmikser]

The point is simple. John 1:1, with the second occurrence of "theos" in the original Greek, is LEFT INDEFINITE by the Holy Spirit. Meaning this: IT COULD GO EITHER WAY. Meaning, that the "Logos" COULD be "Almighty God", but HE MAY NOT BE. In other words, it's INDEFINITE. Whereas the FIRST occurrence of the word "theos" in John 1:1 is definite, WITH the article. And is DEFINITELY referring to the Almighty Absolute God. (The Father). So with Christ in John 1:1, it's NOT FOR SURE, but INDEFINITE.

[jayandersons]

A god acts 28:6 king james bible make me think thers a a ther. jonh 10 33 a man

[stut9882iwxk]

But at John 20:28,the form Kurios(lord)Nominative is used not Kurie "Vocative=Direct address,showing that Thomas' astoinishment and praise was directed to The only one, that the scriptures actually gives the credit for Jesus' resurrection,namely the God of Jesus Christ.1Pet 1:21,Eph 1:27 and 1Cor. 15:15,Plus at John 1:1,2 beings are compared to each other THE GOD Almighty and THEOS,that's why the the second ocurrence is anarthrous.The terms used are not personal,such as Father and Son.

[IHS200]

SO people who died to get the gospel to the world couldnt be trusted with the Bible. You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
SO EVERYONE IS WRONG EXCEPT JEHOVAH CULT 1975 FALSE PROPHETS who cant read hebrew or greek ?

[brainout1]

At 1:14 et seq, they are wrong to say 'tense'. It should be 'case'. Tenses belong to verbs, & even then, 'aspect' is the better term.

Greek 'pros' means 'face to face' with, from 'prosopon', which means 'face'.

As you noted, if definite article it's 'anarthrous', a prominent feature of Greek grammar to stress QUALITY, esp. Divine Quality. I show that in my brainouty James 2 Exegesis playlist (esp. the last 12 videos).

There is no such thing as an indefinite article in Greek.

[middleman777]

Here's the type of fables the WBTS writes...

1969 Awake July 8th pg.30 says:

"For 40 years Robert Khoury was known as an honest man. Then he was given a blood transfusion after a fall. "I learned the donor was a thief," Khoury told police. "When I recovered I found I had a terrible desire to steal."..."Khoury threatened to sue the doctor who arranged the transfusion, if he receives a severe sentence for his thievery."

That's a nice unsubstantiated story/myth don't ya think?

[IHS200]

JW CULT USES WESCOTT MANUSCRIPTS THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE GHOST SOCIETY THEY TRANSLATE JESUS AS A GOD BECAUSE JW'S ARE PAGANS. NO BIBLE READS LIKE THE JW CULT TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1. WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY, AND THE JEHOVAH CULT BIBLE THEY MADE IN 1951. You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts. You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts. You have

[JWinCT]

You have issues.

Please seek help.

You're talking out of your ashcan!!

[middleman777]

I assume that Mr. BeDuhn is a Jehovah's Witness (me thinks no)? If not, what is he?

[littleamigos]

why do you assume he is a JW?

Do you know there was a question on the game Jeopardy..... "it is the most accurate translation of the New Testament".

buzzard sounds.... Alec Trebec answers:

"What is the New World Translation"

The basis for that answer was Mr. BeDuhn's book.

[middleman777]

littleamigos,

Actually I was joking that he was a JW, his writings make that apparent. Even though he "supports" the NWT, he also has no problems about railing on the WBTS for adding words into the Bible in other places that some JW's fail to mention.

Do you know that supposed "Jeopardy trivia" concerning the NWT is one of the most common myths circulated among JW's today?

Continued...

[middleman777]

The WBTS is full of them and this one ranks towards the top lol. If I got a dollar for every time a JW brought this up to me...well I would be very rich in deed. It's amazing how JW's spread so may rumors of things they haven't checked and verified...not trying to be mean here, just telling it how it is. Enjoying the talk

Blessings...

[middleman777]

There's many more stories just like this one...trust me I have a "Theocratic Library" that would make most congregations envious of...maybe envious is not the word but I hope you get my point.

Blessings...

[littleamigos]

Middleman, when your bias, your bias... nothing anybody says or does is "good enough", no matter how truthful it is. So.... it was nice having this little exchange with you, but I'm done :)

I'll send you a video as my farewell gift to you.

[carpentersdaughter2]

Those who translated the greek new testament in the Watchtower society, weren't even Greek scholars.

they have placed "A: where it shouldn't be.

[littleamigos]

Look up professor Jason D. BeDuhn. The man has got credentials. Now look up his book in Amazon . com titled:

"Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"

Once you're there, check out the customer reviews for this book. You'll notice one of the first reviews listed is from a Greek person commenting about the NWT rendering of

John 1:1

Also, go to my channel, and go to my favorites... and look for a video called: the truth about John 1:1

[middleman777]

littleamigos,

Have you actually read his book though? Most JW's that cite him as a scholar source for support of the NWT (his degree is in Bible comparative studies not linguistics-last I checked) fail to mention that he rails on the Watchtower for illegally adding the name Jehovah in the NT among other things.

Just checking...

[littleamigos]

did you read the Greek customer review on Amazon? You should.

[middleman777]

Ok I'll go ahead and do that now. Is there anything in particular I should be looking for? Take care now.

Blessings...

[littleamigos]

go to Amazon, and go to customer reviews for the book I previously mentioned. You'll find a review from a Greek person. I find his review interesting since it's coming from someone who knows a little more about Greek grammar. PLEASE NOTE: there is BIG difference between someone who learns to speak and write a foreign language, versus a native speaker.

[middleman777]

littleamigos,

I know other native Greek speakers that will come to other conclusions, so, what gives? I know plenty of native English speakers that have worse grammar than non native English speakers. My gf for instance is from Spain and has been speaking English for less than 10 years. She has better grammar and articulated words than many "good ole" boy Americans I know. That's just because of education, she's working on her doctorate.

I'm not automatically swayed by "native speakers" hun..

[tofuump]

@littleamigos Just having a review that sounds good is so easy to do. You don't have to know what you are talking about to post a review nor does it have to be accurate to teh content of the book. You just post away, just like on here. Anybody can say anything, it doesn't make it accurate

[middleman777]

Here's Jason's training (according to his website):

EDUCATION

Ph.D. Comparative Study of Religions, Indiana University, 1995

Religions of Late Antiquity, Biblical Studies, Theory & Method, World Religions; Minor: History

M.T.S New Testament and Early Christianity, Harvard Divinity School, 1988

B.A. Religious Studies, University of Illinois, 1985

[littleamigos]

do you know Coptic? specifically the Sahidic dialect?

If not, look into it, this ancient language DID USE the definite and indefinite article, very similar to the way the English language does. You'll be surprise how these 2nd and 3rd century Egyptians translated John 1:1.

[tofuump]

@middleman777 But no ciriculum vitae in language! You are citing BeDuhn as a souce for accuarcy in language when in fact you just proved he ISN"T one. Use the mind Jehovah God has given you to reason this out.

[tofuump]

@littleamigos I have read BeDuhn's book and you have to take things in perspective. He isn't a language scholar. He has no language credentials. He is a religion sholar and he is most well known for his work on pagan mongolian religions. But even BeDuhn condemns the use of Jehovah in the Greek or NT scriptures.

[DefendingYHWH]

MrKattt I was almost through with the whole video but I see the same mistake that you are making with respect to the Greek word θεὸς for God. That brochure isnt stating for every occurrence that God is applied to Jehovah you have to have the article. In John 1:1 that verse specifically shows ὁ λόγος had the qualities of τὸν θεόν, John was showing how ὁ λόγος is a different type of θεὸς, but not equal with τὸν θεόν

[anakrinontes]

1) Tense deals with time. The four grammatical categories for the noun are actually called cases. 2) It doesn't seem to me that the brochure is saying that if θεος is arthrous (preceded by the article) that the referent is necessarily Almighty God (hence, the qualifying words, "in this case").

[anakrinontes]

If that were the case, then the writers of the article would have a problem with 2 Cor. 4:4, if in fact Ο θεος is referring to the Devil, which is the view held by the majority of scholars (cf. Hartley's study on 2 Corinthians 4:4).

[luisap64]

I have a question.

If JWs don't bow down and "worship" Jesus but argue that the texts refer to bowing down in 'rendering obeisance,' then in the Kingdom Halls how do JWs bow down to "render obeisance" to Jesus?

[jahizhim]

oh lets not find loopholes with te oh that would be wrong, so wise,oh do enlighten us all. ye who deny god.

[jahizhim]

so only born agains understand god after they are born again. so i take it before that happens, born agains are confused then boom, ye all have clartiy. well then spread the word. i always wonder what ye did before youtube?knock on doors i think not. say his name, chickens.

[psalm222]

MrKattt the sahidic coptic john 1:1 has the indefinite article. The translation was done around late second century to early 3rd century. John 20:28 can be consider a emotional out burst it meat all the requirement

[MrKattt]

And you are a scolar in the "sahidic coptic" language? Do you understand their grammar? Do you understand what they understood when writting that translation? I don't myself so I can't comment on this.

At John 20:28 if Thomas had an emotional outburst, Jesus would have rebuked him for calling him "The God".

If I call you Almighty God will you not say something?

[psalm222]

Also what i meant about the emotional out burst is it could be directed at the father and not Jesus. giveing the father praise for what he seen doing the mericle.

[fairwhether1]

"Also what i meant about the emotional out burst is it could be directed at the father and not Jesus."

Or it could be directed at Jesus and not the Father ;)

[psalm222]

no i wish but wikipedia show you how it is use when combine with the noun in john 1:1 and it agreed with the nwt.

[james3v6]

Denial ain't just a river.

[jahizhim]

yeah i was catholic also, nd i can use that statement of yours yhere nd say you dont understand the obvious order of the one true god. once again go back to babylon its sick what ye do to ppl. you should obsess more about god nd less about jw.doctrain of demons.

[jahizhim]

its not just jw that believe jesus is the son of god,many do like myself nd i aint one. your all a bunch of pagans, ye would have loved babylon. three gods in one ha ha ha ha, god is not this confusing.

[MrKattt]

Jehovah's witnesses and all who are not born again are carnal. He who is not born of God cannot understand the things of God. That is what the Bible states. God IS confusing to those who are not converted, that is transformed by the Spirit of God. You MUST be born again.

[fairwhether1]

"three gods in one ha ha ha ha,"

What makes you think that this is what others believe?

"once again go back to babylon its sick what ye do to ppl."

If you know God, why do you say this instead of praying for and witnessing to those who are perishing?

[Hokabelle]

Another thing that JW's like to point out, or other non-Trinitarians for that matter, is the fact that in Isaiah 9:6 the Son is called "the mighty god", so that does not equal Him to the ALmighty God. The funny thing is, that even the Father Himself is called the mighty God on more than one instance in Scripture...Isaiah 10:21; Luke 1:49; Jer 32:18.

What's even more amusing is how the Son is called the everlasting Father in Isaiah. I wonder how these guys wriggle out of that one...

[MrKattt]

One way JWs wiggled around it is by saying that Almighty God is our "GrandFather" since Jesus is the Father.

[Hokabelle]

Oi, yeah I figured they would come up with something like that...they're experts at loopholes.

[bebedeppe]

Excellent point Steven. I like the way you make your vid.