![]() ![]() ![]() JWs believe this evidence clearly supports their viewpoint: Jesus Christ is merely “a god”-not like Jehovah, the one true God, as previously mentioned. ![]() And it just so happens this indefinite article precedes the Coptic word for “god” ( noute) in John 1:1c. This language, like English but unlike Greek, has an indefinite article (what English speakers would typically think of as “a” or “an”). One of the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament into another language was Sahidic Coptic, which was spoken in Egypt during the first few centuries of Christianity. ![]() What is this new evidence? Why do they believe it supports their translation? What difference does it make? Colwell’s rule doesn’t disprove either of our positions” (and they share the reasons why).įor much of the past fifty years, your discussion ends here, both sides having to “agree to disagree.” More recently, however, many JWs are considering, advocating, and proclaiming new evidence in support of their translation. For example, we both translate Luke 20:6, ‘John was a prophet.’ That is because the Greek text lacks the article.”Īt this point, you might be able to quote some Christian scholars who say a Greek grammatical rule called “Colwell’s rule” disproves their translation of John 1:1c. That is why we correctly translate the passage, ‘and the word was a god.’ You can see this same reasoning applied elsewhere in passages we don’t debate. For example, in John 1:1c, a fundamental text for orthodox Christian theology, the original Greek text lacks the article (in English, ‘the’) before the Greek word for ‘god’ (which is ‘theos’). JW: “Furthermore, the original Greek text of certain critical passages was translated inaccurately. JW: “One of the main reasons for producing our own translation of the Bible fifty-one years ago was because the most used translation at that time, the King James Version, used archaic language, making Scripture difficult for people to understand.” Up until recently, if you were to discuss such questions with a Jehovah’s Witness (JW), your dialogue would go something like this: Does their translation have any merit? How did they arrive at it? Why don’t other translations render it that way? Why? Their own translation of the New Testament-the New World translation-reads “and the Word was a god” in John 1:1c. One primary passage they often point to is John 1:1. He is rather a lesser divine being (“a god”). Not only is such an understanding well supported by existing scholarly work, it also applies best to other, similar passages in the New Testament, fits what we know the remainder of Scripture testifies to concerning Jesus, and accounts for the early Christian worship of Jesus.Īccording to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ is not like Jehovah, the only true God. The best interpretation of this new evidence indicates that the subject of John 1:1c (“the Word”) possesses all the qualities of God (capital G). But are Jehovah’s Witnesses correct in how they understand this new evidence? Such an understanding of John 1:1c flies in the face of what all major branches of the Christian tradition have testified about Jesus since the Nicene Creed: “true God from true God.” Therefore, if Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct concerning what this new evidence supports, it would radically alter how Christians understand the divinity of Jesus. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses are publicizing new manuscript evidence they claim supports their preferred rendition of John 1:1c: “and the Word was a god.” This evidence-an early translation of the New Testament-comes from the same century as the earliest Greek witness to the New Testament. For further information or to subscribe to the C HRISTIAN R ESEARCH J OURNAL go to: The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. This article first appeared in C HRISTIAN R ESEARCH J OURNAL, volume 35, number 03 (2012). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |