The definite article and Jehovah's witnesses part 1

In a publication published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society - "Should you believe in the Trinity", they stated that if the word God (Theos) has a definite article before it, it defined the Almighty God. But if it didn't have a definite article, it simply meant a divine quality as for Jesus (the Word) in John 1:1. Is this true? This is what this video examines.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jehovah's
• witnesses
• Watchtower
• bible
• and
• track
• society
• definite
• article
• John
• 1:1
• Jesus
• God
• Jehovah
• should
• you
• believe
• in
• the
• trinity
• theos
• divine

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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 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

[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.

[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

[JWinCT]

You have issues.

Please seek help.

You're talking out of your ashcan!!

[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]

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

[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.