KingdomRose
New member
Excellent question, thank you. I will answer that tomorrow. Got to get some sleep. :nightall:
Standing Up To Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
Excellent question, thank you. I will answer that tomorrow. Got to get some sleep. :nightall:
WeberHome
New member
-
Q: Why does the Watch Tower Society refer to the Word in John 1:1 as a
god in lower case rather than a god in upper case?
A: The Watch Tower Society's doctrine is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.
The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's modified by the little
Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós with an upper case G.
But when the article is absent, they translate theós with a lower case g. In
other words: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the
one true God, while theós by itself pertains to nondescript gods; unless the
context dictates otherwise.
However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech.
In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, "ho" can be either used, or
not used, without making any real difference. Bottom line? A translator's
choice whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John1:1 or not to
capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary. So an alternate translation of John 1:1
could look like this:
"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with god, and god was
the Word."
Or:
"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and God was
the Word."
But no matter whether the Word is an upper case god or a lower case god,
he is still a god; which presents a bit of a problem for the Watch Tower
Society.
There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false.
There is no middle ground. Now according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor
8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be
false gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he
is, by default, a false god.
The Society tries to squirm out of this dilemma by claiming that when theós
is unmodified by the article "ho" it refers not to deities; but to so-called
mighty ones. Well; were that so then why don't they translate John 1:1 like
this:
"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one."
They can't translate it that way because in order to do so they would have to
adulterate the Greek. So instead of translating theόs as a mighty one; they
simply interpret it that way. In other words: they spin it; which can be
defined as twisting something around to favor a particular point of view.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Q: Why does the Watch Tower Society refer to the Word in John 1:1 as a
god in lower case rather than a god in upper case?
A: The Watch Tower Society's doctrine is based upon an imaginary
grammatical technicality.
The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's modified by the little
Greek definite article "ho" the Society translates theós with an upper case G.
But when the article is absent, they translate theós with a lower case g. In
other words: in the Society's theological thinking; ho theós pertains to the
one true God, while theós by itself pertains to nondescript gods; unless the
context dictates otherwise.
However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech.
In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, "ho" can be either used, or
not used, without making any real difference. Bottom line? A translator's
choice whether to capitalize either of the two theόs in John1:1 or not to
capitalize them, is entirely arbitrary. So an alternate translation of John 1:1
could look like this:
"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with god, and god was
the Word."
Or:
"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with God, and God was
the Word."
But no matter whether the Word is an upper case god or a lower case god,
he is still a god; which presents a bit of a problem for the Watch Tower
Society.
There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false.
There is no middle ground. Now according to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor
8:5-6, there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be
false gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he
is, by default, a false god.
The Society tries to squirm out of this dilemma by claiming that when theós
is unmodified by the article "ho" it refers not to deities; but to so-called
mighty ones. Well; were that so then why don't they translate John 1:1 like
this:
"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one."
They can't translate it that way because in order to do so they would have to
adulterate the Greek. So instead of translating theόs as a mighty one; they
simply interpret it that way. In other words: they spin it; which can be
defined as twisting something around to favor a particular point of view.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Apple7
New member
Apple7
New member
So says every Mormon that I have ever encountered.
Do you guys witness to Mormons?
Since you are both door-knockers....why not just meet each other in the street and witness away at one another...?
Exchange a BoM for a NWT.
:think:
NWL
Active member
You know what I believe.
It's the response I know brother, it's the reasoning behind my beliefs. Call it what you want.
The TSKS is the most proven principles in Greek grammar? By who's standards, yours? It seems strange that something so proven has been dismissed and rejected by some many scholars who are trinitarians themselves, at least when it comes to Titus 2. Ask and you'll receive.
The sad thing is you'd put more faith into a man made rule then the facts of the scripture itself.
Bowman you always do this, eventually you'll start claiming that you've answered my question and that I'm using the same old tactics again when I keep asking for an answer. Let me know if I'm being unreasonable with this. There is no point in arguing about something which we both agree on, I know you think all bibles are in error today to a certain degree, and you know I know. That being the case, of what use is it for me to show you what you already know. I'm not going to list every error all bibles. don't you realise how many different translations there are, truly an unreasonable demand for something so well known.
Asking the unreasonable and then acting surprised and robbed when you don't get an answer is an age old game of yours. One that I I'm not really keen to play.
Call my bluff? I'm being nothing but sincere. Not everyone in the world likes playing games like yourself bowman.
NWL
Active member
In what sense would she be spending quality time with Satan. Can't you expand, or does your knowledge only go so far as talking about the trinity?
NWL
Active member
Spending time with Satan where? In a literal Hell? Gehenna?
Apple7
New member
Regarding the TSKS construction, Wallace has this to say…
Regarding the above two passages, Wallace has this to say…
If you disagree, then exegetically show us why you differ...after all, you keep claiming that the original languages are where its at....and I keep calling your bluff...each...and every time that you show up for a few terse days, then disappear for another year...
:cigar:
When you are finished projecting yourself on others...I would really like to see you actually reference the original languages like you said that you do.
NWL
Active member
And what does the second death incur? Again is it a literal place, is it a place of torment?
truthjourney
New member
Or they do know the truth about what I've posted and are in denial. Most JW's know that they are not allowed to question or disagree with the Watchtower Society, the governing body, or even the elders or they will find themselves in an elder's meeting to be reproved or disfellowshipped, and/or be told that they are apostate.
Those websites are accurate on what I posted or I wouldn't have given a link to them. References and sources to verify the information was given and it's up to you to either deny the truth of it or research it yourself to see the truth in it. ...There is something positive about the truth.
Either way, when you go door to door, don't be surprised when someone brings these things up and asks questions about it. It would behoove you to research it so you will be prepared to answer their questions. There hasn't been one JW who has come to my door who has been able to answer my questions on these things, not one. They just say that it's not true. And they say that with a great deal of fear. Because they know that to doubt and question the authority of the Watchtower Society comes with certain repercussions.
It has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with the truth.
Last edited:
WeberHome
New member
-
†. John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
"Lord" is from the Greek word kurios, and "God" is from the Greek word
theós
Many moons ago; I asked some Watch Tower Society missionaries to explain
to me why the Society translated theós with an upper case "G" in Thomas'
statement seeing as how in Watch Tower Society theology; only the one true
god should be referred to with capital letters. Well; they were too
inexperienced to explain and my question left them stumped.
The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use
an upper case "G" because whenever theós is modified by the Greek definite
article "ho" then the upper case is required.
Well; personally it matters little to me whether Jesus Christ is an upper case
god or a lower case god just so long as we can all agree that he's at least a
god in accordance with the Society's version of John 1:1 and John 1:18. But
curiosity compels me to make further inquiry.
If Jesus Christ was Thomas the apostle's god, then why isn't he the Society's
god? I mean: if Thomas would speak to Jesus Christ and address him as "my
god" then why can't the Society speak to Jesus Christ and address him the
very same way? Isn't Jesus Christ their god too? If Jesus Christ was the
apostle Thomas' god, then shouldn't Jesus Christ be everybody's god?
Was Thomas out of line? Well if Thomas was out of line, then why didn't his
master correct him? I mean: addressing someone other than the one true
god as "my god" is a conduct that under normal circumstances would be
regarded as idolatry, and maybe even blaspheme. Those are some pretty
serious sins.
FYI: I think we can safely assume that Thomas was a Jew. As such he was
under contract with God in accordance with the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Thomas, therefore, was forbidden to have any other god but the one with
whom his people contracted.
†. Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.
"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)
If Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that addressing
any other god but his people's covenanted god as "my god" would incur the
covenant's curse upon himself.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.
Note the grammatical tense of "cursed is". It's present tense rather than
future; indicating that the curse is instantaneous-- no delay and no waiting
period. So you can see there that if Jesus Christ isn't somehow the god of
the covenant, then Thomas might just as well have put a gun to his head as
address Jesus Christ as "my god".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
†. John 20:28 . . Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"
"Lord" is from the Greek word kurios, and "God" is from the Greek word
theós
Many moons ago; I asked some Watch Tower Society missionaries to explain
to me why the Society translated theós with an upper case "G" in Thomas'
statement seeing as how in Watch Tower Society theology; only the one true
god should be referred to with capital letters. Well; they were too
inexperienced to explain and my question left them stumped.
The fact of the matter is: in John 20:28, theós is modified by the Greek
definite article "ho". So by the Society's own rules; its translators had to use
an upper case "G" because whenever theós is modified by the Greek definite
article "ho" then the upper case is required.
Well; personally it matters little to me whether Jesus Christ is an upper case
god or a lower case god just so long as we can all agree that he's at least a
god in accordance with the Society's version of John 1:1 and John 1:18. But
curiosity compels me to make further inquiry.
If Jesus Christ was Thomas the apostle's god, then why isn't he the Society's
god? I mean: if Thomas would speak to Jesus Christ and address him as "my
god" then why can't the Society speak to Jesus Christ and address him the
very same way? Isn't Jesus Christ their god too? If Jesus Christ was the
apostle Thomas' god, then shouldn't Jesus Christ be everybody's god?
Was Thomas out of line? Well if Thomas was out of line, then why didn't his
master correct him? I mean: addressing someone other than the one true
god as "my god" is a conduct that under normal circumstances would be
regarded as idolatry, and maybe even blaspheme. Those are some pretty
serious sins.
FYI: I think we can safely assume that Thomas was a Jew. As such he was
under contract with God in accordance with the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
Thomas, therefore, was forbidden to have any other god but the one with
whom his people contracted.
†. Ex 20:1-3 . . And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: I am
Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face.
"against my face" is a combination of two Hebrew words that essentially
refer to God's competitors. In other words: it is not Jehovah's wishes to
have a market share of His people's affections; no, He'll settle for nothing
less than 100%. (cf. Mark 12:28-30)
If Thomas was a Torah-trained Jew, then he was fully aware that addressing
any other god but his people's covenanted god as "my god" would incur the
covenant's curse upon himself.
†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in
force by doing them.
Note the grammatical tense of "cursed is". It's present tense rather than
future; indicating that the curse is instantaneous-- no delay and no waiting
period. So you can see there that if Jesus Christ isn't somehow the god of
the covenant, then Thomas might just as well have put a gun to his head as
address Jesus Christ as "my god".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I have found that virtually all salesmanship boils down to letting the buyer choose between 2 options - both of which the seller has chosen, and both of which lead to a sale.
I therefore delight in answering the questions framed by salespeople either with 'secret option #3' - a thoughtful answer which the person framing the question has not provided as a potential solution, or with an explanation of how the question is built on faulty premises.
Not only does it keep them off balance, but in the case of the person who has 'bought his own bs' (pardon my french), it serves to illuminate how they fell into the trap in the first place.
Jarrod
KingdomRose
New member
He's not telling you the truth. His ideas are way out of line with what JWs are really about. He says we consider Jesus a "false god" and that is ridiculous.
Read my reply concerning John 1:1.
KingdomRose
New member
Not fair. You are stating your uninformed opinion. The WT does research in every area, with every book they can get their hands on, not just the NWT. JWs can prove the doctrines we believe in by using ANY Bible. We used the KJV and the American Standard Bible for many years before the NWT was available!
The "difficult passages" are easily explained, using any Bible. A person has to be willing to let them explain, rather than cutting them off.
Apple7
New member
So...
If the various English translations are in agreement....why is it witnesses still deny Jesus' deity?