How can J.W. hand out the SHOULD U BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY booklet when thier are so many desceptions in that b

Question

book my hubby researched that book and they take so many scholers out of context to support there version of John 1:1 they even quote a spiritist

Answer 1

Education SHOWS us how to think; Propaganda TELLS you what to think. People do not create TRUTH; they reach out to comprehend it. Let us take a look at John 1:1 Not from Jehovah's Witnesses point of view but from a secular Biblical source. This will allow us not to become "bias", nor allow us to see it from a philosophical arguments to evade its clear statements of truth.

Here is a transliteration of the Greek and a direct translation:
”en arche en logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.” Word for word rendering as: “In beginning was logos and the logos was toward the theos and theos was the logos.”

For clarity, ”In the beginning was the Word and the Word was unto THE Theos and the Word was theos.” Pros ton theon denotes the subordinate position of the Word, who, although he is given to share in the same Divine Nature as the Father (as we are, 2 Peter 1:4), looks to, or towards THE God in subjection to Him and is thus not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.

If one does a search of Strong Dictionary: 4314 PROS, it will be clear it means to or toward and NOT with. Also, the distinction between the one true Theos and one who is a subordinate theos also called the logos, is evident in the Greek. The definite article Strong Dictionary: 4314 TON precedes THEON and thus refers to THE Theos, the one true Elohim. This fact indicates the addition of the indefinite article (a) before theos at the end of the verse, as in the NWT, is appropriate in that it provides the correct meaning of the text.

At JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “The Word Was God”? The Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God. (Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person)

On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os´ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os´ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this? The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo´gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os´] cannot be regarded as definite.” (So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.)

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is NO “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”
In harmony with the above, (1). AT reads: “the Word was divine”; (2). Mo, “the Logos was divine”; (3). NTIV, “the word was a god.” (4). In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures.

Finally, A thorough study into the names and titles of God is really necessary to begin understanding how they are applied, to whom, and what the relationships between them are. The rendering of John 1:1 in the NWT is thus more correct than most other translations. The understanding may not likely into most people’s heads because it doesn’t allude with the Trinitarian’s theism forced on the Christians of Rome from the counsel of Constantinople if 381 CE.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1907: “The word was even divine being.”- “Das Wort war selbst goettlichen Wesens,” The New Testament, by Curt Stage.
1910: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” “Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst goettlichen Wesens,” The New Testament, by Rudolf Boehmer.
1919: “And God of a sort the Word was.”- “Und Gott von Art war das Wort,” The New Testament, by Ludwig Thimme
1922 : “The Logos was divine.” Dr. James Moffatt’s New Translation of the Bible
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1937: “and the Word was a god.” The New Testament—A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, by Johannes Greber (a translation from German into English), edition of 1937, the front cover of this bound translation being stamped with a golden cross.
1939: “and of godlike nature was the everlasting Word.” (Martin Dibelius, The Message of Jesus Christ, Translated by Frederick C. Grant, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,).
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1947: “and the Word was god.” The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, second edition.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1949: “And was of divine weightiness.”- “Und war von goettlicher Wucht,” The New Testament, by Friedrich Pfaefflin.
1949: “the Energising Mind was divine.” (Freeman Wills Crofts, The Four Gospels in One Story, Written as a Modern Biography, London: Longmans, Green and Company,).
1951: “And God (=of divine being) the Word was.”- “Und Gott (=goettlichen Wesens) war das Wort,” The Holy Scriptures, by D. Dr. Hermann Menge, twelfth edition.
1534: “and the worde was with God, and the worde was god.” William Tyndale, The New Testament.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1961: “And what God was, the Word was.” The New English Bible, issued in March
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1985: “The Word was divine.” Hugh J. Schonfield’s The Authentic New Testament, The Original New Testament, Edited and Translated from the Greek by the Jewish Historian of Christian Beginnings, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985).

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os´ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.” And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?”

Answer 2

Is the word trinity in the Bible? How many times does the Bible ( Old & New Testament) mention God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit together?. (Remember the trinity has to be 3 in one.) If there is so much support for the Trinity in the Bible how come some scriptures were inserted in an effort to support the Trinity that are not part of the original ancient text? (1 John 5:8. 1 Timothy 3:16)
Look in the original text for example , at John 1:1 (Which by the way does not mention 3 persons) there are visible differences for the words used for God and scholars do explain that there is a difference in the meaning.

Answer 3

This is true. Back in 1956 an article in the Feb.15th Watchtower magazine entitled "Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces" indicated that Johannes Greber was indeed a known spiritist and his translation "The New Testament" was a "spiritualistic" version. Although the Watchtower Society recognized this, they continued to cite Johannes Greber's translation within their publications to support their teachings on John 1:1(denying the deity of Christ). Many years later, it became public knowledge that Greber was indeed a spiritist. The Governing Body then had to create a "Questions from Readers" within their Watchtower magazine to rid themselves from any connection regarding Johannes Greber. They stated they will no longer cite his translation within their publications. They also stated that they didn't realize Greber was a spiritist until 1980. However, proof lies within the 1956 Watchtower article that the Society indeed recognized Greber as a spiritist yet continued to support his "spiritualistic" translation.

Answer 4

Please give an example.

We all can have opinions, that and $5.00 can buy you a cup of coffee.

I have found that "bible scholars" view being quoted by the Watchtower as a kiss of death to their pocket book.

I know one scholar who in his first book said that the NWT is one of the three bibles he would recommend.

In the reprint of his book, he changed it to read, the NWT to one of the three bibles that only serious students of the bible should use.

Even the translators of the NIV said that if they had translated the bible correctly they would have wasted 2 million dollars. and that they are victims of the KJV.

Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:

“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Thd.D., PH.D., D.D.
wrote a letter complaining that the Watchtower quoted him about the Greek.

When you honestly anylasis the letter what was indispute was not the correct grammar of the Greek, but his interpetation of the Greek.

Answer 5

If the Watchtower had good scholarship, they would not have to keep the "translators" [sic] of the New World Translation anonymous. Their translation of that so-called bible is so far from the Greek and Hebrew texts, a first year seminary student can spot the errors.

If they can't translate the Bible honestly, how can they be expected to have integrity in their propaganda?

Answer 6

I don't know how they can do this. Here's a troparion that explains the Christian perspective.

When Thou oh Lord was baptized in the Jordan,
the Worship of Trinity was made manifest.
For the voice of the Father bare witness to Thee
and called Thee, His beloved Son,
and the Spirit in the likeness of a dove,
confirmed the truthfullness of His Word,
oh Christ, Our God,
who has revealed Thyself and has Enlightened the World,
Glory to Thee!

Answer 7

How can you blame them when they are right? The word trinity never appears in the bible and as far as I remember, John 1:1 says nothing about the Holy Spirit.

Answer 8

Well you have your point of view and I have the facts of 35 yeasrs of research to support my belief that I personally researched that brochure when it was give to me and from my knowledge of the Bible ,history archeology,lexicography and talking to other experts in the fiellld we come to the conclusion that eveyything in the brochure is 100% TOTALLY ACCURATE recheck you suppositions before you make yourself out to be TOTALLY IN ERROR best wishes on your research Gorbalizer

Answer 9

dog sneeze is right.

I mean, look at this question.

No offense... (okay, well this IS offensive, but hey... free speech!)
but who the hell married you? You're definitely no "scholer" yourself.

Answer 10

Sometimes free speech is also free from accuracy or correction.