Why Did the Jehovah's Witnesses (G. Body) Quote Johannes Greber (A Spirit Medium) To Support Their Doctrines

Question

Check the Following:

1. Aid To Bible Understanding p. 1669 "The Word"
2. Make Sure Of All Things p. 1334 "Memorial Tombs"
3. The Watchtower (9/15/1962) p. 554, "The Word"
4. The Watchtower (10/15/1975) p. 640, "No Resurrection"
5. The Word p. 5, "A God"

The New Testament By Johannes Greber (a medium of God's Spiritworld) - John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was a god."

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

"In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Did you notice the similarity? Now check your King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible and other reliable versions if they are the same with the John 1:1 of New World Translation. You will see the big difference. Many reliable Bible scholars will tell you that it is not right to translate it as "a god" since the Greek of John 1:1 does not merit it. JWs wanted to make Jesus a secondary inferior "god."

Answer 1

The POINT is their hypocrisy.

They also criticised Greber, along with the Catholic church, as "mixing spiritism or voodooism right in with Roman Catholicism..."

Watchtower, Oct 1, 1955, 'What Do the Scriptures Say About "Survival After Death?"':

"33 Is such official Catholic teaching as the above an impenetrable defense against the invasion of spiritism? No! It is an invitation to spiritism, and the conditions in Roman Catholic lands, such as Peru, Costa Rica, Cuba and Haiti, show Roman Catholicism to be no bulwark against this spreading peril. In such lands the Catholic people, even up to 90 per cent, mix spiritism or voodooism right in with Roman Catholicism, practicing both at the same time with no objection or penalty by the priests. It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled “Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws and Its Purpose.” (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York) In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: “The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible; for its principal contents hinge upon the messages of the beyond to those existing in the present.”

This is their "go-to guy" for substantiating their version of John 1:1...

Think about it.

Suzanne

Answer 2

It is not only the NWT translation that does not have John 1:1 like the KJV's rendering, so you'll have to take up your case with all the others too. Here are some more for you to check out-

Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”

Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the·os′ en ho lo′gos)

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, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and
London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American
Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach, Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach
Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a” is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “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.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

1. New World Translation

2. King James Version

3. An American Translation

4. New International Version

5. Revised Standard Version

6. Today’s English Version

Mark

6:49 1.an apparition 2. a spirit 3. a ghost 4. a ghost 5. a ghost 6. a ghost

11:32 1. a prophet 2. a prophet 3. a prophet 4. a prophet 5. a real prophet 6. a prophet

John

4:19 1. a prophet 2. a prophet 3. a prophet 4. a prophet 5. a prophet 6. a prophet

6:70 1. a slanderer 2. a devil 3. an informer 4. a devil 5. a devil 6. a devil

8:44 1. a manslayer 2. a murderer 3. a murderer 4. a murderer 5. a murderer 6. a murderer

8:44 1. a liar 2. a liar 3. a liar 4. a liar 5. a liar 6. a liar

9:17 1. a prophet 2. a prophet 3. a prophet 4. a prophet 5. a prophet 6. a prophet

10:1 1. a thief 2. a thief 3. a thief 4. a thief 5. a thief 6. a thief

10:13 1. a hired man 2. an hireling 3. a hired man 4. a hired hand 5. a hireling 6. a hired man

10:33 1. a man 2. a man 3. a mere man 4. a mere man 5. a man 6. a man

12:6 1. a thief 2. a thief 3. a thief 4. a thief 5. a thief 6. a thief

Answer 3

You are correct, the NWT did for a time use Johannes Greber as a reference to John 1:1., in the foreword to Greber’s 1980 edition of The New Testament it tells that this translator relied on “God’s Spirit World” to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: “His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.” However the NWT did not render John 1:1 on the basis of Greber’s work.

Interestingly the first release of the NWT Greek scriptures in 1950 made no mention of Johannes Greber to support their rendering. In the appendix they refer to several Greek Grammas as well as renderings from The Complete Bible, An American Translation (reprint 1943) and the way it rendered John 1:1 – “In the beginning the Word existed, the Word was with God, and the Word was divine”

They also refer to A New Translation of the Bible by Dr. Jas. Moffat where he renders the last clause as “the Logos was divine” (1935 Edition) The later quote a text called The New Testament upon the Improved Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Testament: with a Corrected Tex, printed in London, 1808 which reads “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”

The reference to Johannes Greber in relation to John 1:1 where his work is used to show that the NWT was not the only one to render it in the way they did. Eventually all WTBTS writers were informed of who he was and they stopped using his bible to show that others agreed with the NWT.

The truth of the matter is the NWT has rendered John 1:1 according to grammatical rules. Bibles that say “and the Word was God” do so on theological ideas.

Starting from about 1953, it used to be argued that the NWT went against what is known as Colwell's rule. Many scholars echoed what one well known and highly respected scholar said. However it has since been discovered that he misunderstood Colwell's rule and miss-applied it, and scholars has stopped referring to it as evidence of a miss-translation. The Scholars that made the discovery that Colwell’s rule did not support the idea that the NWT went beyond grammar, translate John 1:1 on pre-conceived theological ideas instead.

Answer 4

Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible students. As such, we use Bibles. Lots of different Bibles. For instance, we use the King James Version and we point, with specificity, to its renderings of Exodus 6:3; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 26:4 and Psalm 83:18 respecting the name Jehovah as it is found there. By your line of reasoning, we should not use the King James Bible. Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

You requested that we check 'reliable' Bibles. May I ask, do you have a personal definition of what is reliable? Should we deem Bibles that translate John 1:1 the way some prefer as "reliable?" And should we do so at the exclusion of all other scriptures which speak of the identity of our Lord Jesus?

If, as you contend, JW's want to make Jesus a secondary inferior "god" because of their translation of John 1:1, do you also contend that many professed Christians want to support the name of Jehovah as being the name of the true God in accord with the King James Bible translation of the above scriptures? And since the NEW King James Version has removed this name in the above scriptures, can we reasonably argue that this means that professed Christians now reject the name of the true God as it originally appeared in the King James? Put another way, does that mean the King James Bible was wrong all along when it showed the name Jehovah? Or does it mean that it properly showed the name but now many professed Christians reject the name because it does not support their current beliefs?

Hannah J Paul

Answer 5

Mat 16:13 (Johannes Greber)
When Jesus entered the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked of his disciples, “Who do the people say that I, as the son of man, am?” They answered “Some say you are John the Baptist;others, that you are Elijah; still others, that you are Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” Then he asked them further, “But you, who do you say I am?” Simon Peter replied. “You are the Messiah, the Son of God, of the Deliverer.”

KJV:
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


ASV: Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?And they said, Some'say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets
He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


You will notice that in Johannes Greber translation there is an addition of “of the Deliverer” so that’s an addition to the Bible. But the translation rightfully state that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Eventhough Johannes was helped by the “spirits” he translated parts of that correctly. Is it a reliable translation? I don’t think so, and it is true that Jehovah God doesn’t like humans to have anything to do with spiritism.

But the demons know that Jesus is the Son of God, they know Jesus. See Mat 8:28

Mat 8:28 - 28 When he got to the other side, into the country of the Gad•a•renes´, there met him
two demon-possessed men coming out from among the memorial tombs, unusually fierce, so that nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And, look! they screamed, saying: “What have we to do with you, Son of God?”

Was it wrong that Jesus is the Son of God, eventhough the demons said it? No. Because other verses of other Bible versions (ASV, KJV, NWT, etc) , show that the Father, confirmed that his Son, is Jesus.

Other Bible versions, confirmed that the NWT is also correct in translating John 1:1.

1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
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.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
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

Answer 6

Secondary god, primary god, three-headed god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, walked on water.

Please.

Arguing over who is and isn't a heretic to a superstition that is so clearly make-believe is like arguing over whether Batman could beat up Captain America. What is the difference between some spiritualist making it up as he goes and the Gospel writers fabricating Jesus' birth and the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, a Quirinian census, a flight to Egypt, resurrections from the dead, the transfiguration and all that fabulous nonsense, dead people walking around town after the crucifixion? C'mon.

The only reason the JWs seem silly to you is you weren't programmed to ignore their nonsense the way you were programmed to accept your own nonsense without any critical examination. So making a niggling point over the translation of the Greek 'ho", as though that makes their fabrications any more ridiculous and primitive than the ones you prefer is the height of silliness.

Answer 7

Achtung, did the JHVH Witnesses say, "Do not be yoked with the unbeliever's?"
2 Corinthians 6:14-17: "Do not be yoked together with the unbeliever's. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have with an unbeliever? What agreement is there with the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the Living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

Because the WTBS took the translation from an "ungodly" man, that makes the NWT "unclean"? Does JHVH approve of the WTBS Bible because they added a translation from a man that was practicing in the spiritual realm that JHVH God forbids?

Answer 8

Question? did you read on?
Because in the john1:14 it said that the Word became flesh and was the son of God. And in a since Jesus could be consider a god but only second to Jehovah.
The scriptures themselves make him second

Answer 9

The way this sounds is like you are just looking up things on jehovahs witnesses and then believeing everything said about them just because you read it or heard it thats like if i were too look you up and found a whole load of **** about you and i believed it and started spreading that around..i dont understand why people feel the need to bag on other peoples way of living and etc...why cant you just leave them alone...let people be what religion they want to be and if you dont like it then stay the hell out of it and live your own life....obviously you are feeling as though you lack in an area or you wouldnt try to make yourself feel better by ganging on others.

Answer 10

They had to take their support from where ever they could because Jesus being God will not support their organization's doctrines. None of their NWT translators had a formal training in Biblical languages.